I'm running Rules 2.2 with Views 3.3 on Drupal 7.15.
I attempted to customer the rules_scheduler view (provided by default) by adding a "Rules scheduler: User provided identifier" filter. I was hoping to be able to give myself a way to search for specific identifiers, but unfortunately none of the usual search options ("contains" "is" etc., the search field) are present. [see attached screenshot]
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #6 | Screenshot from 2015-04-15 08:53:42.png | 23.58 KB | lunk rat |
| #2 | rules-1724454-2-user-provided-identifier-views.patch | 583 bytes | ptmkenny |
| userprovidedidentifier.jpg | 20.96 KB | ptmkenny |
Comments
Comment #1
ptmkenny commentedComment #2
ptmkenny commentedFor me, getting this to work was as simple as changing the handler to the Views string handler. Patch attached.
Comment #3
fagoThanks, committed.
Comment #5
ptmkenny commentedI just updated to 2.8 and this patch is apparently no longer included, so I had to re-patch.
Comment #6
lunk rat commentedThis comment has been moved to its own issue https://www.drupal.org/node/2472681
Comment #7
ptmkenny commented@lunk_rat Does my patch not do what you're asking? Why is the status changed from "needs review" to "active"?
Comment #8
lunk rat commentedWorks for standard filter. Does not provide a contextual filter.
Comment #9
ptmkenny commented@lunk_rat: Ok, then we have two issues here: 1. a bug report, which is that the filter already in Rules does not work properly, and 2. a feature request to support contextual features as well.
Since we already have a patch for #1, if you want to make a feature request, please open a separate issue.
Comment #10
lunk rat commented@ptmkenny Yah, I knew better, but I thought I could get away with just changing the title and status since it was so closely related ;)
But you're right, especially since a patch for this issue has already been committed. Please forgive that d.o sin.
Here's the feature request:
https://www.drupal.org/node/2472681
Comment #11
tr commentedRE:
#4: The patch was committed and the issue closed.
#5: I confirmed that the patch has been committed and is in the current version of Rules.
#6: You opened an additional issue for your feature request, so that no longer needs to be discussed here.
So there's nothing left to do here. This issue should have stayed closed, and should have been returned to closed once it was determined, three+ years ago, that it shouldn't have been reopened.