Order of alter hooks is not always respected by ModuleHandler

Let's add related tests here, 🐛 Order of alter hooks is not always respected by ModuleHandler Needs work

I believe changing this as proposed would make some happy and others unhappy.
The impact will become more clear with the new order tests added in 🐛 Order of alter hooks is not always respected by ModuleHandler Needs work .
I suggest to keep the functionality as it is today, and wait for 📌 Hux-style hooks, proof of concept Needs work which will allow to specify weights for individual implementations.

----

For people who still need this, there _is_ a workaround!
You can invent a fake module, and use hook_module_implements_alter() to insert an implementation on behalf of that fake module.

E.g. Display Suite (ds) can invent a fake module '_ds_late', for hooks that should run late.

Then do this:

function ds_module_implements_alter(array &$implementations, string $hook): void {
  // Always target the the base hook, otherwise implementations will be removed.
  if ($hook === 'entity_view_alter') {
    $implementations['_ds_late'] = FALSE;
  }
}

// This will run last on ->alter(['entity_view', 'node_view']).
function _ds_late_node_view_alter(...) {...}

I am not sure if we will or should support this workaround in 🌱 [META] Hooks via attributes on service methods (hux style) Active , though.

Sorry, links in my previous posts were wrong.
Correct link is 📌 Improve unit test coverage for ModuleHandler Active
(I already corrected, but this is for people who only read the emails)

Is this resolved in 📌 OOP hooks using event dispatcher Needs review ?

I'm pretty sure this is now resolved now that 📌 Hook ordering across OOP, procedural and with extra types Active is in.

Maybe we just add a test here.

nicxvan → changed the visibility of the branch 11.x to hidden.

Needs a rebase, but I have a clean test that shows this is still an issue.

Scratch that this was fixed in 11.2 but it will be good to have explicit test coverage.

I'll clean up the issue summary etc later.

Took a pass at credit and updated the issue summary.

Appears to have an open thread

Replied thanks!

Actually I want to make it less likely that a random test hook will collide with this and some more comments

Ok I made the hook more rare and added some comments, this is ready for review again.

Not quite sure why that new MR is here.

The Needs Review Queue Bot → tested this issue. It no longer applies to Drupal core. Therefore, this issue status is now "Needs work".

This does not mean that the patch necessarily needs to be re-rolled or the MR rebased. Read the Issue Summary, the issue tags and the latest discussion here to determine what needs to be done.

Consult the Drupal Contributor Guide → to find step-by-step guides for working with issues.

The Needs Review Queue Bot → tested this issue. It no longer applies to Drupal core. Therefore, this issue status is now "Needs work".

This does not mean that the patch necessarily needs to be re-rolled or the MR rebased. Read the Issue Summary, the issue tags and the latest discussion here to determine what needs to be done.

Consult the Drupal Contributor Guide → to find step-by-step guides for working with issues.