Convert theme_views_ui_view_info() to Twig

meta split.

Review for #2:

+ * - view: The view object.

for basic administrative info about a view.

+ * Prepares variables for Views UI view info templates.

Capital "V" for a View when it's an object.

Other than that, this looks good to me.

We need manual review steps written in the issue summary and we need somebody to manually review the markup.

Manual testing the markup is a good novice task too!

fixing capital v addressed in #5.

+++ b/core/modules/views/views_ui/views_ui.theme.incundefined
@@ -55,7 +55,13 @@ function template_preprocess_views_ui_display_tab_bucket(&$variables) {
+ *   - View: The view object.

Sorry, but I think I was mistaken on this at the ladder meeting tonight. I think the "The" is unneeded and the view we capitalized should be lowercase, with the description View being uppercase. Can you change this to view: View object.

fixing capital v addressed in #5 and #9.

Thank you @designesse! Just removing novice tag and changing this to needs review for the testbot to kick in. This one should be fairly simple one to do Manual Testing on.

Aaah, sorry to nitpick a nitpick but + * - view: View object. is "The View object." in almost every other Views conversion patch being reviewed currently.

I kind of feel responsible, I saw that comment and didn't speak up:(

Maybe this patch will make up for it? I uppercased a couple other "View" caps. Please check if those make sense...

#13: 1963986-13-twig-views-ui-view-info.patch queued for re-testing.

Reroll attempt... luckily no merge conflicts.

#17: 1963986-reroll-patch13-17.patch queued for re-testing.

Ah whoops.

patch in #22 passed my manual testing and daisydiffing.

I will profile

bbranches 519ffe6e4d3f0 1963986-reroll-patch13-22.patch
=== 8.x..8.x compared (519ffe6e4d3f0..519ffece8bb60):

ct : 40,655|40,655|0|0.0%
wt : 453,036|453,638|602|0.1%
cpu : 438,023|438,391|368|0.1%
mu : 40,715,592|40,715,592|0|0.0%
pmu : 40,844,736|40,844,736|0|0.0%

Profiler output

=== 8.x..1963986-reroll-patch13-22.patch compared (519ffe6e4d3f0..519ffee50146c):

ct : 40,655|40,655|0|0.0%
wt : 453,036|454,363|1,327|0.3%
cpu : 438,023|438,242|219|0.0%
mu : 40,715,592|40,716,144|552|0.0%
pmu : 40,844,736|40,844,048|-688|-0.0%

Profiler output

---
ct = function calls, wt = wall time, cpu = cpu time used, mu = memory usage, pmu = peak memory usage

Removing "needs profiling" tag

My profiling was flawed, adding the needs profiling tag back on so someone else can tackle it.

Unassigning @StryKaizer, though you are more than welcome to profile this patch.

Here's some instructions if you want to give it a crack:
https://drupal.org/contributor-tasks/profiling

in #5 @thedavidmeister asked

We need manual review steps written in the issue summary and we need somebody to manually review the markup.

seems like @StryKaizer might have done manual testing in #23...
but the steps to test were not added to the issue summary.

Putting the steps to test in the issue summary makes it a lot easier for people to repeat the testing in the future. https://drupal.org/contributor-tasks/add-steps-to-reproduce explains more. :)

[edit:]
maybe an interdiff would have been nice for the concern brought up in #21 https://drupal.org/documentation/git/interdiff
Actually I was thinking on this more and, maybe an interdiff wasn't there because it seemed to not make sense for moving a file. There are git config settings that make git show renames of files in a nice way.
I put

[diff]
  renames = copy

in my .gitconfig file to help with git diffs on a issue I was working on a while back that was moving files around. I'm not sure if that would have helped...

Hmm, @YesCT just noticed that we didn't actually post our steps for manual testing. @StryKaizer do you mind posting your manual testing steps in the issue summary?

And whomever picks up the profiling bit, writing your steps out in the Issue Summary would really help that as well.

Rerolled patch as it no longer applies.

Will manual test to confirm results.

Remove sandbox link

You can see this on admin/structure/views. I've added a step to Issue Summary.

Manual testing checks out. :)

#32: 1963986-32.patch queued for re-testing.

+++ b/core/modules/views_ui/templates/views-ui-view-info.html.twigundefined
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+ * @see template_preprocess()

Afaik we remove this references now.

Removed @template_preprocess from template as per #2013094: [policy adopted, patch needed] Stop saying '@see template_preprocess()' in every twig file and as requested by dahwehner in #37.

#38: 1963986-38.patch queued for re-testing.

profiling...

Scenario:
Theme: Stark
URL: http://d8prof.dev/admin/structure/views/
Permissions: Views UI: Administer views

=== 8.x..8.x compared (51e2215579f70..51e22193d5fd6):

ct  : 45,067|45,067|0|0.0%
wt  : 249,318|249,273|-45|-0.0%
cpu : 218,033|217,973|-60|-0.0%
mu  : 14,328,520|14,328,520|0|0.0%
pmu : 14,385,744|14,385,744|0|0.0%

http://www.lionsad.de/xhprof-kit/xhprof/xhprof_html/?run1=51e2215579f70&...

=== 8.x..1963986-twig-views-ui-view-info compared (51e2215579f70..51e221c38f48f):

ct  : 45,067|45,421|354|0.8%
wt  : 249,318|249,165|-153|-0.1%
cpu : 218,033|219,060|1,027|0.5%
mu  : 14,328,520|14,353,096|24,576|0.2%
pmu : 14,385,744|14,411,504|25,760|0.2%

http://www.lionsad.de/xhprof-kit/xhprof/xhprof_html/?run1=51e2215579f70&...

un-tagging and RTBC.

• Profiling falls within margin of error.
• Manually Tested.

Committed 3bc754a and pushed to 8.x. Thanks!