Decouple tour from ConfigInstallProfileOverrideTest

Ended up reusing actions as they were already included.

A test of the configuration system should not rely on any core feature. Coupling test coverage to anything unnecessary to the test is bad and causes no end of false fails, technical debt, and weird problems. We should therefore always use test fixtures instead of real core features unless the feature itself is what's being tested. If Tour can be swapped for Action without any impact on the coverage or intended functionality of the test, it can also be swapped for a test module with a similar configuration structure. Thanks!

All green

Left a comment, we already have \Drupal\config_test\Entity\ConfigTest so I think we can simplify this even further

Switched up to using entity_test_bundle.

Looks good to me, nice one!

Nice decoupling from the tour module but unfortunately I think we've subtly changed the nature of what is being tested here and given how optional configuration is handled during installation I think the changes are important. I've added comments to the MR in gitlab.

Addressed feedback

Updated

I think this is ready again, but I will admit I've struggled to get my head around it.

Looking at it line by line, it looks to me like the removed tour config has been replaced with equivalent test config entities

Added some more comments to the MR.

@alexpott think I addressed the issues.

Came by here to move issues along for the tour module.

@smustgrave, thanks for working on this and learning about the configuration system on the way!

I think this is ready again, but I will admit I've struggled to get my head around it.

I agree with @larowlan! A completed issue summary is extremely valuable to anyone working on an issue and this one is empty. :-( What this, and every issue, should have is a high quality issue summary that explains what the code is doing with as much detail as needed so contributors don't need to start from scratch. Because of the time spent figuring out the changes, I did not review the code (and beside larowlan and alexpott already have) so I stuck to the comments. Setting to NW for improvement in that area.

Addressed feedback.

Some of it though not sure gitlab was showing old versions.

One minor comment now, and then I think this is ready

🤯 This one has been a real struggle to comprehend

Thanks! Will take care of it

Since this has gone through a round of reviews and last feedback was a comment change think this is good to RTBC.

+1 RTBC

Committed and pushed c8a07913a0 to 11.x and ebdf86b465 to 10.2.x. Thanks!

Backported to 10.2.x to keep tests aligned.

Thanks for all the help on this one everyone. Certainly was a confusing one.

Yes definitely, thanks @alexpott for the eagle eyes

Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.