Support for Drupal 7 is ending on 5 January 2025—it’s time to migrate to Drupal 10! Learn about the many benefits of Drupal 10 and find migration tools in our resource center."seperated" should be "separated"
./modules/contrib/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_combine.inc:66: $seperated_fields = array();
./modules/contrib/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_combine.inc:68: $seperated_fields[] = $field;
./modules/contrib/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_combine.inc:70: $seperated_fields[] = "' '";
./modules/contrib/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_combine.inc:73: $expression = implode(', ', $seperated_fields);
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #22 | grep-says-views-ok.txt | 1.89 KB | YesCT |
| #21 | interdiff-17-20.txt | 0 bytes | YesCT |
| #20 | drupal-views_seperated_spelling_mistake-1844276-20.patch | 960 bytes | YesCT |
| #17 | drupal-1844276-17.patch | 960 bytes | dawehner |
| #16 | spelling-patch-trouble.txt | 4.05 KB | YesCT |
Comments
Comment #1
dawehnerThanks for reporting!
Should be easy to fix by providing a patch.
Comment #2
nagwani CreditAttribution: nagwani commentedPatch with spelling mistake fixed
Comment #3
nagwani CreditAttribution: nagwani commentedComment #5
YesCT CreditAttribution: YesCT commentedtrying to help @nagwani figure out why it failed to apply for the test bot.
I did:
git clone --recursive --branch 7.x-3.x http://git.drupal.org/project/views.git
cd views
git pull --rebase
git reset --hard
curl -O http://drupal.org/files/drupal-spelling_mistake-1844276-2.patch
git checkout -b spelling-2
git apply --index drupal-spelling_mistake-1844276-2.patch
git status
git diff 7.x-3.x
git diff 7.x-3.x > views-spelling_mistake-1844276-5.patch
history
It applied ok for me. Made a new one anyway to let the testbot try. changing to needs review to trigger the test bot.
Comment #7
jweowu CreditAttribution: jweowu commentedComment #8
jweowu CreditAttribution: jweowu commented#5: views-spelling_mistake-1844276-5.patch queued for re-testing.
Comment #9
bartmcphersonSo what made it pass the retesting?
Comment #10
jweowu CreditAttribution: jweowu commentedSetting the version of the issue to match the branch that the patch was being rolled against. The test bot uses the issue version to check out the appropriate branch from git.
#5 passes now, of course, but you can see in the report for the original failed test in #2 that it was attempting to apply the patch against the 7.x-3.5 branch, and that in the successful re-test after changing the version it is using the 7.x-3.x branch.
Comment #11
nagwani CreditAttribution: nagwani commentedWill retesting #2 pass the test now? Just wanted to understand.
Comment #12
jweowu CreditAttribution: jweowu commentedYes, #2 would also pass now if you were to re-test it.
I don't believe there's any additional state stored with an uploaded patch file, so if the patches are identical, they would behave identically when tested in the same context.
Comment #13
dawehnerThat's even a spelling mistake in german :)
Committed that to 7.x, let's forward port that.
Comment #14
mducharme CreditAttribution: mducharme commentedFoward port for D8 attached.
Comment #15
dawehnerThat's looking fine.
Comment #16
YesCT CreditAttribution: YesCT commentedI had trouble getting the patch to apply... what did I do wrong? (see the attached history)
Comment #17
dawehnerOh right, this patch was written against views module as root.
Comment #18
mducharme CreditAttribution: mducharme commentedI was wondering about that actually. So the 8,x-3.x repo on the Views project page should no longer be cloned and work is just done right on core?
Comment #19
dawehnerRight, exactly ...
Comment #20
YesCT CreditAttribution: YesCT commentedjust tricking testbot.
Comment #21
YesCT CreditAttribution: YesCT commented:)
I'm considering getting dreditor to move the save button further away from attach.
Comment #22
YesCT CreditAttribution: YesCT commentedOh, and here is grep showing we got them all.
Comment #23
YesCT CreditAttribution: YesCT commentedComment #24
webchickCommitted and pushed to 8.x. Thanks!
Comment #25.0
(not verified) CreditAttribution: commentedclarification