It is quite awesome to have fieldgroups being exportable with the Features module at this point but perhaps it could be even more awesome...
Right now, when you select a content type for export in the features module, you still need to select all the fieldgroups manually to include them in the feature. Since fieldgroups don't make a lot of sense without the content type, I think it would be more straight forward to have them included automatically.
It would save some time and clicking around in the fieldgroup listing when creating a feature, something that is easily overlooked when creating a content type feature and slightly annoying since the fieldgroups are listed alphabetically by fieldgroup name and not by the content type to which they belong.
Just a thought... thanks!
Comment | File | Size | Author |
---|---|---|---|
#5 | 1198606.field_group.export-node-type-field-groups-features.patch | 867 bytes | joachim |
Comments
Comment #1
sjugge CreditAttribution: sjugge commentedfixed title typo
Comment #2
nils.destoop CreditAttribution: nils.destoop commentedI looked at the features export from node, but it's not possible to hook into it.
Comment #3
sjugge CreditAttribution: sjugge commentedBummer, someday perhaps... thanks for looking in to it though!
Comment #4
joachim CreditAttribution: joachim commentedThis is definitely doable now with Features.
For example, look at the way Strongarm does it to automatically export variables that are related to a node type.
Comment #5
joachim CreditAttribution: joachim commentedHere's a patch.
Comment #6
DamienMcKennaThis should already work - as of #1278252: Fieldgroups should be created when adding the fields to the feature when you add a content type it should automatically add the fields, which will then automatically add the groups that the fields are in. However, it won't add any empty groups that exist which have no fields.
Comment #7
sime7.x-2.x branch hasn't been updated in 8 years and doesn't have a recommended release. I'm closing all 7.x-2.x issues that are over 2 years old.
Comment #8
DamienMcKennaUnless the module is being abandoned completely, I don't see any reason to close this just yet.
Comment #9
simeAll good thanks Damien. FYI it might be worth switching to 7.x-1.x, unless you're stuck with a site on 7.x-2.x
7.x-2.x last change = 7 years ago
7.x-1.x last change = 8 months ago