#Needs change record

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.

Removed the needs test tag, and used a more appropriate title.

Rebased for 11.x, adding support for the 📌 [ignore] Convert everything everywhere all at once Active work.

Version of the patch still using the procedural approach is available here for reference purposes.

Attached an attempt at creating a patch from MR 2417 that is compatible with Drupal 10.3.x

Attached an attempt at creating a patch from MR 2417 that is compatible with Drupal 10.3.x

gitlab shows that there is a conflict in .module file, please rebase and fix

This patch is causing problems when reverting revisions.

This is because of the getActive call that was added to retrieve the latest version of the block when editing in stead of the saved revision. I believe it was added to prevent EntityChangedConstraint errors, but they were fixed in https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/issues/3053881 → .

Steps to reproduce this:

1. Create a page with a text block with title AAAA.
2. Update the page and change the text block title to BBBB.
3. Revert back to the first version.
4. The block title is now AAAA. But when you open the edit form of the block, it shows BBBB (the latest revision)

Code that is causing this behavior (in InlineBlock::blockForm()):

    if (!$this->isNew && !$block->isNew() && empty($this->configuration['block_serialized'])) {
      // Get the active block for editing purposes.
      $block = $this->entityRepository->getActive('block_content', $block->id());
    }

I think there might also be other places that this getActive function is called to prevent the error where it is no longer needed.

I would be willing to update the patch, but have not been active in creating it, so I'm not sure about what I might be breaking when removing this code.

Looks good, approved.