- Merge request !2074Issue #2707689: NodeForm::actions() checks for delete access on new entities → (Closed) created by useernamee
The Needs Review Queue Bot → tested this issue. It either no longer applies to Drupal core, or fails the Drupal core commit checks. Therefore, this issue status is now "Needs work".
Apart from a re-roll or rebase, this issue may need more work to address feedback in the issue or MR comments. To progress an issue, incorporate this feedback as part of the process of updating the issue. This helps other contributors to know what is outstanding.
Consult the Drupal Contributor Guide → to find step-by-step guides for working with issues.
- Status changed to Needs review
about 2 years ago 3:22pm 31 January 2023 - Status changed to Needs work
about 2 years ago 5:11pm 18 February 2023 - 🇺🇸United States smustgrave
This issue is being reviewed by the kind folks in Slack, #needs-review-queue-initiative. We are working to keep the size of Needs Review queue [2700+ issues] to around 400 (1 month or less), following Review a patch or merge request → as a guide.
Hiding files as the fix is being done in MR 3347
Moving to NW as there are failures in the MRs
Did not test or review yet.
- First commit to issue fork.
- 🇦🇺Australia acbramley
Rebased onto 11.x and made some minor changes. Updated IS and title to match solution.
- 🇦🇺Australia acbramley
We have one failure which I can reproduce locally NodeAccessLanguageTest::testNodeAccess
I think this is something weird with the caching changes, the lines just before the failing assertion set the catalan nodes as "accesible" via some state and then check that they're still not accessible based on static caching:
// Make Catalan accessible. \Drupal::state()->set('node_access_test_secret_catalan', 0); // Tests that Catalan is accessible on a node with a Catalan version as the // static cache has not been reset. $this->assertNodeAccess($expected_node_access_no_access, $node_public_ca, $web_user);
Since we're testing the delete operation last based on $expected_node_access_no_access I expect that's nuking the static cache or something? In any case this seems like fragility in this specific test rather than an actual problem in the solution.