Make non-progressive batch operations possible

sukr_s → changed the visibility of the branch 638712-make-non-progressive-batch to hidden.

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

With this fix progressive value can be set in batch definition. if progressive is false then it run in a single run else it uses multiple run. usage e.g

$operations = ['my operations'];
  $batch = [
    'title' => 'My batch runs in single run',
    'operations' => $operations,
    'progressive' => FALSE,
  ];
  batch_set($batch);
  batch_process();

Bhanu951 → changed the visibility of the branch 11.x to hidden.

Removing tests tag as coverage can be seen here https://git.drupalcode.org/issue/drupal-638712/-/jobs/1645989
Hiding patches since fix is in the MR.

Issue summary appears complete and believe matches the solution.

Only one I'm iffy about is

  $this->drupalGet('admin/reports/dblog');
    $this->assertSession()->pageTextContains('Non progressive operation 100');

If there is just a better way to check the values without having to go to the page but may not be a big deal. Was the only thing I saw.

I read the issue summary, the comments and the MR.

@satbir.singh, thanks for getting this working. To help reviewers, the information in #69 should be in the issue summary in the proposed resolution section. That is the best place for people to find and understand the consequences of the proposed change. Thanks.

In #54 the solution of the patch in #47 was questioned as doing too much work. They then preferred the solution from #41. The solution in the MR is difference again. There should be discussion here on the reason the current solution was chosen over the others.

I am setting back to NW for a comment in the MR and to get agreement on the solution.

batch_set function accepts the batch definition with progressive as a parameter. #41 introduces a new parameter to the batch_process. Having a new parameter in batch_process can cause conflict between the value set when creating the batch with batch_set vis-a-vis calling the batch_process.

The proposed solution uses the value set in the batch definition so that it's consistently available throughout the processing of the batch.

Feedback appears to be addressed here