While I was doing some work on a node access issue, I noticed that the node access pager test we added in #681760: Try to improve performance and eliminate duplicates caused by node_access table joins could use a little cleanup for easier debugging. The attached patch clarifies some assertion messages and comments, and removes assertion messages that hide the more specific message provided by the base class method.
Comment | File | Size | Author |
---|---|---|---|
#8 | node-test-cleanup-1786142-8.patch | 1.98 KB | dcam |
#5 | 1786124-5.patch | 2.12 KB | xjm |
#5 | interdiff.txt | 765 bytes | xjm |
node-access-pager-cleanup.patch | 2.08 KB | xjm | |
Comments
Comment #1
chx CreditAttribution: chx commentedquoting xjm from IRC: "the logic is that assertText() and assertRaw() provide their own assertion messages that are much more specific" and that's why those get messages removed the others just the t().
Comment #2
DamienMcKennaA minor thing: the first occurrence of "Lookup" was replaced with "Look up" but the second was left as-is, they should both either be left as-is or changed to the same values; fyi "lookup" is a valid word so I'd question the need to change it at all.
Beyond that, the patch works fine and does exactly what it says it does - the messages from the base class are displayed instead of the previously overridden values.
Comment #3
xjmActually, that's incorrect. "Lookup" is a noun. "Look up" is a verb. :)
Comment #4
DamienMcKennaPer irc, there's a second occurrence of "lookup" :)
Comment #5
xjmI get it now. Here's that fixed as well. Thanks @DamienMcKenna!
Also tagging for backport for parity.
Comment #6
DamienMcKennaSetting it back to RTBC based because chx liked it and my own review.
Comment #7
catchYep. Committed/pushed to 8.x.
Comment #8
dcam CreditAttribution: dcam commentedBackported #5 to D7.
Comment #9
xjmLooks good, thanks @dcam!
Comment #10
webchickCommitted and pushed to 7.x, too. Thanks!