Document special route names

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.

Rerolled.

The Needs Review Queue Bot → tested this issue. It 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.

I had Reviewed the patch and it's working as expected mentioned in comment #52

great work joachim, patch is all working fine and thanks ranjit for reviewing, reviewing a patch will help an issue move forward. The contributor guide contains move information about contributing.

<?php

namespace Drupal\Core;

/**
 * This class holds a <span> generated from the <nolink> route.
 */
class GeneratedNoLink extends GeneratedLink {

  /**
   * {@inheritdoc}
   */
  const TAG = 'span';

}

<nolink> is a special route too, which is not documented by the patch here, is it irrelevant here?

Not a bug, could be a Minor

Apply the issue summary(IS) template only. If #55 is a thing, then needs updating IS.

@jungle that is a valid route that can be added to the link so think it should be included as well.

Addressed #58 and added to the patch

Fixed CCF from #59

Patch #60 is applied successfully and screenshot is also attached.

Checked the patch given in #60 works properly

1. +++ b/core/lib/Drupal/Core/Routing/NullGenerator.php
   @@ -28,6 +28,14 @@ public function __construct(RequestStack $request_stack) {
   +   *   - <nolink>: Used to enter a link, but only the text of the link to be shown, without actually creating a link.
   

   This needs wrapping at 80 characters.

2. +++ b/core/lib/Drupal/Core/Routing/UrlGeneratorInterface.php
   @@ -15,7 +15,13 @@ interface UrlGeneratorInterface extends SymfonyUrlGeneratorInterface {
   +   *   @see \Drupal\Core\Routing\NullGenerator.php::getRoute
   

   This @see is not valid; it can't be part of @param and the .php extension shouldn't be added to the class name. Not even sure we need an @see here?

Attaching patch and interdiff for the issue mentioned in comment #63

Build failure in #64

removing errors from patch #64

Please try this patch for 10.1.x

+   *   - <nolink>: Used to enter a link,
+   *   but only the text of the link to be shown,
+   *   without actually creating a link.

that visually just doesn't read right.

Modified the patch as requested.

Adding again with modification of #69.

same patch for 11.x.

The last submitted patch, 72: 2719611-71.patch, failed testing. View results →

Patch #70 has successfully passed the test in version 11.x, hence it should be moved to the "needs review"

The Needs Review Queue Bot → tested this issue.

While you are making the above changes, we recommend that you convert this patch to a merge request → . Merge requests are preferred over patches. Be sure to hide the old patch files as well. (Converting an issue to a merge request without other contributions to the issue will not receive credit.)

So #72 was not needed as #70 still applies cleanly to 11.x, same for the MR Ticket could of been put back into RTBC

+++ b/core/lib/Drupal/Core/Routing/NullGenerator.php
@@ -28,6 +28,16 @@ public function __construct(RequestStack $request_stack) {
+   *   - <nolink>: Used to create text that appears as a link,
+   *   but does not lead to an actual URL, only the text
+   *   of the link is displayed without an actual link.

The second/third lines of the bullet point need to be indented another two characters. Also this can be wrapped more closely to 80 characters.

Same for the other instances of this. However, do we really need to repeat this in all three places?

Akhil Babu → made their first commit to this issue’s fork.

Updated as per #81

#81 indentation has been addressed.

Still not sure this is quite right, added some more suggestions.