Avoid error when $options is NULL in buildUrl()

Restoring issue summary, tags and related issue which was removed in #68.

Re-roll patch needed for 11.x.

Re-roll patch created for 11.x.

I added the Needs issue summary update tag because it would help to understand remaining work and the proposed resolution specifically the test coverage expansion in the issue summary rather in the comment chain.

I am working with @ompiepy at MidCamp 2024 and we're going to look at this issue to try to move it forward. Possibly transitioning to a merge request after updating the issue summary.

I am looking into the issues to get the summary update and then start working for the merge request.

samit.310@gmail.com → made their first commit to this issue’s fork.

Did not review

Issue was tagged for issue summary update which appears to still be needed.

To handle the error when $options is NULL in buildUrl(), you can add a simple check to ensure that $options is always an array.
Something like this

$options = is_array($options) ? $options : [];

The patch we suggested seven years ago (!), simply casting to array, was already capable of accomplishing this. :-)

I have long moved on since and no longer bitten by this problem but this one is really ridiculous, I have to say. A very straightforward modification that obviously doesn't even require testing, it cannot cause any problems or regresssion by definition, and nobody ever bothered to accept it (or even argue against it). Must be one of the record setters in Drupalland. :-)

In response to #3 and #76:

The options of an URL object are documented as optional, which means NULL is a valid value.

So it does not really matter where the underlying problem is coming from. The problem is that the code blindly assumes that $options is a mandatory array, which does not comply with the spec. So any code in core that assumes that options is array, should be rewritten to be null-safe.

I got into this ticket due LinkGenerator, which has exactly the same incorrect not-null assumptions (line 93 and line 154)

So IMHO the underlying problem is not that somwhere the options aren't set, the underlying problem is that this code is not following the specification. I've added this to the issue summary.