Theme preprocess functions do not get retained when using patterns

I couldn't replicate this bug on a clean install of 6.x-dev. I tried garland and a contrib theme (sky) and I was able to get my custom views-view-unformatted--frontpage.tpl.php to show up fine in both themes. I visited /frontpage, added views-view-unformatted.tpl.php and stuck some text in there, and went back to /frontpage. My text showed up fine. I then renamed it to views-view-unformatted--frontpage.tpl.php, changed my custom text, cleared cache, and went back to /frontpage... and my new text was there. Let me know if I misunderstood the process or if you need any more info.

Thanks for the link -- I get it now. Yes, creating a table view does replicate the problem. It is a bit disconcerting to have all your content disappear. So bug replicated, patch tested, problem apparently solved. I even ran it through coder, just to be impudent. :)

As long as I'm being impudent, I'll mark it RTBC.

Reread, reviewed again and committed to 6.x. Still to be committed to 7.x

Testing Drupal 6.2 with both patches from this issue applied, and Views beta2. I am able to create both a template file and a preprocess function for a specific field in a view, by name. (That is, both of the issues here are addressed.)

Looking for another test before committing (to me, the patch looks just as good as the previous one looked :)

these patches work for me using 6.2 and views beta2. Thanks everyone - especially Merlinofchaos, views is a wonderful addition to drupal. I can successfully create preprocess functions and views-view-fields--MYVIEW.tpl.php files to override theme settings.

That's 2 confirmations.

OK, committed the updated patch. Needs a reroll for Drupal 7 with both patches.

Attached patch combines both of the above, rolled against today's HEAD.

I still don't understand how to "install" this patch... Are those directions above? They don't say where to place this code....

I applied the patch but it said 2 hunks failed and one succeeded. Any ideas?

Are you applying this against HEAD?

As of today, the patch in #14 applies perfectly to HEAD, so the author of #17 must have been applying the patch to something else.

aclight: If it applies perfectly and works, please set RTBC so we can get this issue closed out. :-)

@Crell: I didn't say I had tested it :) I didn't have time for that, just to see that it applied properly.

#277626: Checking CCK nodes with drop down lists lead to SAX 0x0 parsing error might be suffering from this bug as well. For certain CCK types, Mollom receives a 0x0 ASCII/Unicode character which causes the server-side XML parser to barf with a error like An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x0) was found. Where that 0x0 would slip into the output string isn't clear yet but KarenS thinks there could be relation with his bug. We can only reproduce it with CCK node types.

Dries: I am confused how the two could be related. This thread is just about finding .tpl files. Have you done any sort of before/after checks with this patch to see if it affects the other? If not, then I don't see how they'd be related.

Excuse my general ignorance, but I came to this thread from the Views support page because I'm having a problem with my Views page (called testimonials) not using the node-view-testimonials.tpl.php file it should be. It sometimes works, but when I change a configuration in Drupal, it breaks.

Using the Theme Developer (devel module) I can see that it's no longer even looking for my tpl.php file and has reverted to trying to find views-view-unformatted.tpl.php which isn't right.

I've tried applying the d7 patch from post #14 above, but that didn't work. The first two hunks succeeded and the second two failed. It looks to me like that code already exists (for the failed hunks) in the Drupal 6.3 theme.inc file but I'm not entirely sure what I'm supposed to be looking for.

What's the status of this problem? Or is the problem I'm experiencing nothing to do with this? Looking at the link merlinofchaos posted in #3 above, I think I'm on the right track...

Cheers,

Al

Thanks merlinofchaos - I'll try that if/when I experience the issue again, but what I've done at the moment is the following:

- Taken your patch and applied it to my Drupal 6.3 (the first two hunks succeeded, the second two failed)
- Visited the modules page which should rebuilt the theme registry cache

This has fixed the problem this time around. I'm sure next time I make a config change to the server it'll lose it again, at which point I'll test your suggestion.

Much appreciated! I'll keep you posted.

Al,

This is still not in 7. Will test.

This needs tests.

Reroll of #14.

Yes, we need tests for this, but it would be very helpful for several other D7 issues being worked on for this to land quickly. This is a straight port of what's already been part of D6 for over a year.

I'm not too clear on what this does, but the bot its been on thousands of sites for over a year.

The use-case for this comes in when theme() is called with an array of hooks (or now, with an implicit array through the use of the __ delimiter). For example, in menu_tree_output() we set $build['#theme_wrappers'][] = 'menu_tree__' . $data['link']['menu_name']; If someone were to actually implement a THEMENAME_menu_tree__MENUNAME() function, the template_preprocess_menu_tree() function would not run for it. This patch fixes that. This points to the need for better test coverage of all the awesome and crazy things the theme registry is capable of. I'll work on that when I get a chance, but I'm not sure when that will be, so if others want to work on that, please please do so. In the meantime, I'm not aware of anything currently that this is holding up (maybe the D7 port of views?), but as per #32, it's been in D6 for quite a while.

I have an alternate proposal for how to fix this in D7 instead of the forward port of the way it was fixed in D6.

In D7, we now use the 'pattern' concept and double-underscore convention for suggestions set in preprocess functions (what D6 did with $variables['template_files']): #678714: Unify use of theme hook / template suggestions, fix clobbering problems, and improve suggestion discovery performance, which I'm really pleased with for the reasons covered in that issue. But it introduces an interesting question: should there be any difference at all between specifying suggestions when calling theme() and specifying them from a preprocess function? With #30, there is a subtle difference: specifying suggestions when calling theme() invokes the preprocess/process functions of the suggestion, whereas specifying suggestions from a preprocess function does not, since at the time theme() needs to decide which preprocess/process functions to run, all it knows is the hook it was given. I'm not convinced that this is a useful distinction we want to support, and this patch removes such a distinction, resulting in no difference between suggestions specified when calling theme() and suggestions specified from a preprocess function, which I think will make things easier for non-expert developers. It leaves open the ability for a hook_theme_registry_alter() to unset the 'original hook' key, if it really wants to hack around this and customize the preprocess chain on a suggestion by suggestion basis (though this would also require such a module to use the pass suggestions to theme() approach over the specify suggestions in a preprocess function approach). But I really see this as an edge case. Anyone want to dispute this? Has anyone here implemented custom preprocess functions intended only to run on a single suggestion (e.g., hook_preprocess_views_view__VIEWNAME()) and feel that this is sufficiently superior to implementing hook_preprocess_views_view() that contains a switch statement on the view name so as to justify maintaining different behavior depending on where in the pipeline the suggestions are set?

Sounds like an edge case to me too. Consistency++

#34: theme-registry-fix-d7-34.patch queued for re-testing.

No objections to the added consistency but loss of edge-case support of #34 vs. #30. Given that, @moshe: are you comfortable RTBC'ing, or would you like to see a positive review from someone?

bot is happy.

To me this looks good, but admittedly, I'm not super familiar with this code. What is unclear, for example, is why we keep the 'original hook'. It does not seem to be used...

Even with the re-tooling, it still has essentially the same purpose (see for example, the hunk that the patch adds to theme()). I would personally prefer the name 'base hook', but I refrained from making that change without merlinofchaos being around to comment on it. What do you think: should I re-roll with that name?

I have no preference between 'original hook' and 'base hook' but at this point it might be considered an API change and should probably not be changed without a solid argument (or an okay by Dries and/or webchick)

This patch changes 'original hook' to 'base hook'. I don't think it's an API change, as at no point in the D7 development cycle, including currently in HEAD, has 'original hook' existed. This doesn't break anything in D7. It's only a change of name relative to what's in D6, but that's normal for a D6 -> D7 upgrade. And the argument for why this is a better name is the change in implementation relative to what's in D6. In this implementation, 'base' has a well known meaning (a suggestion is a theme hook that is a variant of some parent/ancestor/base hook), whereas it's not clear what meaning 'original' has ('original' sounds like something having to do with the internals of the order in which the registry processes things, which while having some truth to it, isn't the key concept that needs to be conveyed).

Downgrading to "needs review" because this patch also adds a test to demonstrate the bug fixed by this patch and so that it stays fixed. The test fails on HEAD, but passes with the patch. The test involves 4 new files, so webchick/Dries: make sure to "cvs add" those. Those are:

• modules/simpletest/tests/theme_test.info
• modules/simpletest/tests/theme_test.module
• themes/tests/test_theme/template.php
• themes/tests/test_theme/test_theme.info

So, the theme.inc hunks have already been RTBC'd, but I'd appreciate it if someone could review the test addition and RTBC if that looks good. Thanks.

I think we're in agreement. It is in D6. My point is that it's not in D7. It was added to D6 after D7 development started, and never added to D7. This issue is now about adding it to D7, but I think that gives us the freedom to name the key what we want (for D7). I'm not suggesting that we make any changes to D6.

So, the theme.inc hunks have already been RTBC'd, but I'd appreciate it if someone could review the test addition and RTBC if that looks good. Thanks.

No takers, huh? Since the code in #43 was already RTBC, and it's "just" tests that have been added, I'll go out on a limb and mark it RTBC myself. I hope the change from 'original hook' to 'base hook' helps answer #39.

This is blocking other patches, it's a regression from D6, tests are a nice bonus, confirming RTBC.

subscribing.

Trying to chase head

Though I like Dries am not super familiar with this code, I went ahead and committed this patch to HEAD. It's a regression from 6.x, it adds oodles of comments explaining what's going on in this murky part of the code, and it has test coverage to show that it's working properly. Yum.

I've been looking into #939462: Specific preprocess functions for theme hook suggestions are not invoked (see this comment)--exactly the "edge case" mentioned here in #34. I think that custom preprocess functions for specific suggestions are actually common in custom theming, as I've seen this method used in themes and even suggested in presentations (for example, slide #41 of Katherine Lynch's Theming Views: get it to "look right" presentation at DrupalCamp Chicago).

Given that this functionality was available in Drupal 6 (as mentioned in comment #44), I think this may be considered a regression.

Subscribing. I ran into the same problem on a specific template of Views (e.g. views-view--taxonomy-term-leaf--page.tpl): its preprocessing function mytemplate_preprocess_views_view__taxonomy_term_leaf__page(&$variables) has no effect on that template. Seems that the function is completely ignored.

See also #956520: Available theme hook suggestions are only exposed when there are preprocess functions defined

There is a regression from D6, but an intentional one, as per #34/#35. When I get a chance, I'll read up on #52, and reply with any further thoughts.

Please, please fix this. Please.

It does sound like this is a regression from Drupal 6, and IMO a regression qualifies as critical.

Here's a possible patch. For theme hooks that declare a base hook, this code will make sure that preprocess and process functions from both hooks will run. However, templates that are chosen via patterns (like node--article.tpl.php) don't get preprocess functions via the same patterns (like template_preprocess_node__article())--I don't think that they did in Drupal 6, though.

This patch interleaves the preprocess and process functions; they run base preprocess, base process, specific preprocess, specific process (instead of preprocess, preprocess, process, process).

I'm also not sure where the 'override preprocess functions' => TRUE/FALSE key from hook_theme() comes in to play. It seems relevant to this issue, but is completely ignored at the moment.

I have not tested this, but the patch looks good in theory. Test bot likes it, but I am not sure if it tests preprocess functions extensively.

I'm willing to help test, but I haven't read through this entire thread to figure out what would be a good test. If you can describe how I can best test this patch I'll see if I can do that on Wednesday night!

My patch is as much a question as a solution: what is the intended behavior here? As far as I know, the patch makes D7 behavior match D6, but I don't spend much time with the theme system, and unlike D6, theme function/template naming patterns are actually used in D7 core.

• I think that 'override preprocess functions' should be checked to determine whether to run preprocess and process functions from the base hook. This would be a sensible addition to the patch above.
• I don't know if the theme system should look for template preprocess functions that correspond with a particular theme hook pattern.

@bec, avoiding a regression is a good thing so your patch is more than a question. Reading the thread it looks like not having it is a regression.

I don't know if the theme system should look for template preprocess functions that correspond with a particular theme hook pattern.

I think it is a great idea. But I think it is too late for D7, it could potentially be backported as it would be a back compatible api change. It could also conceivably be done by a contrib. module.

I think that 'override pre-process functions' should be checked to determine whether to run pre-process and process functions from the base hook. This would be a sensible addition to the patch above.

That is a tricky one. As it stands there should be a bug that override pre-process functions is ignored. I suppose if this patch would cause that bug to be manifested then it should be included.

fix-preprocess-patterns.patch queued for re-testing.

Setting this back to closed as in #51. The original issue this thread was about was making sure hook_preprocess_views_view() ran when 'views-view--page-1.tpl.php' was used, and that has been fixed in both D6 and D7.

The discussion since then about the regression from D6 to D7 in that hook_preprocess_views_view__page_1() gets called in D6, but not in D7, is one worth having, but let's move it to #939462: Specific preprocess functions for theme hook suggestions are not invoked. I left a long comment there (#6) with my thoughts on the matter. I marked that issue major, rather than critical, because RC1 is not a deadline for it. If we decide we want D7 to work like D6 in this regard, that can be achieved without breaking BC for existing D7 code.

I'm reopening this because the file(s) specified to be included in the base hook is not added and the processor function will not run. Attached patch includes file(s) of the base hook.

@edmund.kwok. Please open a new issue, this was closed a long time ago.

Additionally all bug fixes should be posted againt 8.x, with the tag "Needs backport to D7" added.

#1430300: Preprocess functions in an include file fail to get called when the theme implements a suggestion override now contains a test and fix for #68. For anyone interested, please review it, and RTBC if appropriate.