Problem/Motivation

When you go to the content type configuration page the options for configuring the module are not clear.

Proposed resolution

Add a description explaining how the configuration works.

Remaining tasks

Create the patch

User interface changes

A description will be added to the content type configuration page.

API changes

None.

Data model changes

None.

Release notes snippet

None.

Comments

adriancid created an issue. See original summary.

adriancid’s picture

Status: Active » Needs review
StatusFileSize
new874 bytes
ndobromirov’s picture

StatusFileSize
new871 bytes
new966 bytes

I've closed #3093651: Per node configurations for delete of revisions in favor of this one.
I like the descriptions direction change, however not the concrete texts used.

In there I still see it's per content type, where it should be per bundle settings.

Here is an alternative proposal for a patch.

adriancid’s picture

Hi @ndobromirov can you explain a little about this?:

"In there I still see it's per content type, where it should be per bundle settings."

A content type (node_type) has bundles, usually, they are named as content types

. Article (article) is a bundle of a node_type, but I always see the people name it as content type and not a bundle.

+++ b/node_revision_delete.module
@@ -71,11 +71,12 @@ function node_revision_delete_form_node_type_form_alter(&$form, FormStateInterfa
+    '#description' => t('The settings defined in this section will be applied to each node of this content type.'),

I don't see why you don't like this text.

We don't need to close #3093651: Per node configurations for delete of revisions , just rewrite the issue and keep it because we really can add this feature, a config in each node overwriting the configuration of his content type.

ndobromirov’s picture

I don't see why you don't like this text.

Content type is a single thing - node.
Bundle - differs within the node. For example: article, page, etc. In terms of Drupal terminology it's the better word to use at this particular place. I am OK with the original text but I personally thing it's more clear stating that this is a "per bundle configuration" in some way.

Either is OK.
Enough with the bike-shedding on my side :D.


I opened the issue with this particular use-case in mind. It appears it was already present in the module and that's why I've closed it.

If you require a per-node revision limit configuration that is something fully separate. I can re-word the issue and make it such, but it was never it's initial goal. :)
I think it will over-complicate the module and make consistent performance harder to enforce.

  • adriancid committed 7edad9a on 8.x-1.x
    Issue #3093739 by ndobromirov, adriancid: Explain in a better way the...
adriancid’s picture

Status: Needs review » Fixed

Thanks @ndobromirov, if you can check the module strings will be great, as I'm not a english speaker sometimes is hard to me to write in the correct way ;-)

  • adriancid committed 95bcf7e on 7.x-3.x
    Issue #3093739 by ndobromirov, adriancid: Explain in a better way the...

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.