Inconsistency in 'all' hook invocation

[hakre]

The 'all' hook (catchall hook for any hook name) is getting inconsistently called depending on how the concrete hook is being invoked: by apply_filters, apply_filters_ref_array, do_action or do_action_ref_array.

In the simple cases (apply_filters, do_action), the hook will get all parameters passed, in the ..._ref_array cases, the hook will get only two parameters passed in which the first parameter is the name of the hook (a.k.a. tag) and the second parameter is an array of all other parameters.

Every 'all' hook-function-callbacks should be called in the same way regardless whether which of the four invocation functions have been used on that pointcut.

Additionally all four routines share a lot of the same code which could benefit of a refactoring.

[hakre]

Basically filters and actions are hooks and the same.

[hakre]

Related: #9886, #10561, #5231

[hakre]

Remove of some redundant code.

[hakre]

Touched other functions as well.

[hakre]

Corrected some whitespace issues on empty lines.

[hakre]

Related: #10535

[hakre]

Second Parameter Definition in Function Header of do_action() might be bogus: #14881

[hakre]

First patch is the important one: ​http://core.trac.wordpress.org/attachment/ticket/14789/14789.patch

The other patches aren't the actual bugfix, they should go into a ticket on it's own.

[westi]

First patch might be ok.

Needs testing and validating with the unit test suite.

[hakre]

​14789.patch had been extensively tested, unit test suite run same with and w/o patch. If you have some specific test in mind, let me know.

Reference: #16661

[scribu]

The inconsistent spacing in 14789.patch​ makes it harder to read. No, really.

[hakre]

Replying to scribu:

The inconsistent spacing in 14789.patch​ makes it harder to read. No, really.

That's right, the vertical rythm is broken. Will update it.

[hakre]

Vertical rythm fixed.

[hakre]

no need to shift plus type hints

[hakre]

Replying to c3mdigital:

Can you please justify your close suggestion?

[c3mdigital]

Replying to hakre:

Replying to c3mdigital:

Can you please justify your close suggestion?

To me this seems more like refactoring than a bug and hasn't had any traction in 3 years. I added 2nd opinion so someone else could give a suggestion on whether or not this ticket should stay open. I really don't see a bug here.

[hakre]

Replying to c3mdigital:

Replying to hakre:

Replying to c3mdigital:

Can you please justify your close suggestion?

To me this seems more like refactoring

No, this is not refactoring. Refactoring would mean that behavior is not changed even the code changed. Here the behavior is changed with this patch. Which by definition is not refactoring.

than a bug

The term bug is not really precise, as it's not refactoring can you please explain what you mean by that?

[DrewAPicture]

No movement here in 2 years. Still need a refreshed patch and refreshed unit tests to move forward. Closing as maybelater.