Testing Result

I have tested this item 🔴 unsuccessfully on 5528b0e

Article copied successfully, but open a Categorie got Warning: Declaration of Joomla\Component\Categories\Administrator\Model\CategoryModel::batchCopy($value, $pks, $contexts) should be compatible with Joomla\CMS\MVC\Model\AdminModel::batchCopy($value, $workflowid, $pks, $contexts) in /administrator/components/com_categories/Model/CategoryModel.php on line 39

Maybe this Pull Request can not be tested by Patchtester.

System information

Looks like the problem here is that modifying the Joomla\CMS\MVC\Model\AdminModel::batchCopy by adding $workflowid may be used by another component extending AdminModel, while it concerns only articles.
Therefore categories get warning as well as com_fields. We get errors for contacts, etc.

If you have the old ID, you don't need this parameter. One can just get the default stage from the workflow (linked in the new category) when copied, so the article is resetted or just don't change anything when moved.

If you have the old ID, you don't need this parameter. One can just get the default stage from the workflow (linked in the new category) when copied, so the article is resetted or just don't change anything when moved.

Thank you for the help, updated the PR. Now it no longer has the additional param of workflow_id in the function definition.

@franz-wohlkoenig @infograf768 Please re-test

Please test this:

batch_articles.diff.zip

Please test this:

batch_articles.diff.zip

Tested to be working locally. Made PR with the changed files.

@bembelimen
is it ok now?

@yanzhaoINT please test > https://docs.joomla.org/Testing_Joomla!_patches

@bembelimen
Please check if it is fine now.
(Still a few code style to correct)

Made the required changes

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 62a78a1

I have tested this item successfully

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 62a78a1

Work's as described.

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 62a78a1

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 62a78a1

PHP Version 7.3.8
Web Server Apache
WebServer to PHP Interface cgi-fcgi
Joomla! Version Joomla! 4.0.0-beta1-dev Development [ Amani ] 17-October-2019 20:21 GMT
User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:69.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/69.0

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 62a78a1

Success

Setting Value
PHP Built On Linux server2.adiheutschi.ch 3.10.0-962.3.2.lve1.5.24.9.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Feb 13 08:24:50 EST 2019 x86_64
Database Type mysql
Database Version 10.2.27-MariaDB
Database Collation latin1_swedish_ci
Database Connection Collation utf8mb4_general_ci
PHP Version 7.3.10
Web Server LiteSpeed
WebServer to PHP Interface litespeed
Joomla! Version Joomla! 4.0.0-beta1-dev Development [ Amani ] 17-October-2019 20:21 GMT
User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/77.0.3865.120 Safari/537.36

RTC

I've stumpled over the issue which is fixed by this PR and so found this PR and checked in detail what it does. To be honest: I am not really happy with it.

It overrides the batchCopy routine of the base class with (except of a few codestyle enhancements) identical code just to add then the creation of the workflow association record. This produces duplicate code.

Wouldn't it not be easier just to add following code to routine cleanupPostBatchCopy in the article model below line 92, i.e. after the if with the sql insert of the new record into the #__content_frontpage table (which should also be changed bit that's another issue)?

		// Copy workflow association
		$workflow = new Workflow(['extension' => 'com_content']);
		$assoc = $workflow->getAssociation($oldId);
		$workflow->createAssociation($newId, (int) $assoc->stage_id);

These 3 lines should lead to the same result as this PR does.

Folks, please comment, maybe I am wrong or am missing some aspect of it.

@bembelimen
Please check this and infograf768#55 as we are not sure about handling workflow for this.

Please test PR #26835 . Is solves the same problem as this PR here, but in a more elegant way.

Closing in favour of #26835 which uses the API and doesn't require full method duplication