Follow up for #552604: Adding new fields leads to a confusing "Field settings" form
Problem/Motivation
As shown in that issue, the global settings tab has a warning that say the settings there cannot change, but some of them can, the site builder just needs to be *careful* and know what they are doing. The warning message is not accurate.
Proposed resolution
Make the warning message accurate.
Something like: "Some of these cannot change. Some you need to be sure, and know what you are doing." But with better phrasing.
Remaining tasks
Discuss exact wording.
Implement the change, provide patch
review patch
A screenshot with the fix would be nice.
User interface changes
Just a change to a warning message.
API changes
No api changes anticipated.
Comment | File | Size | Author |
---|---|---|---|
#35 | 1854990-nr-bot.txt | 144 bytes | needs-review-queue-bot |
#32 | 1854990--applied--patch--cleanly.png | 1.34 MB | ajaypratapsingh |
#32 | 1854990--after--patch.png | 805.71 KB | ajaypratapsingh |
#32 | 1854990--before--patch.png | 627.87 KB | ajaypratapsingh |
#31 | interdiff-1854990-29-31.txt | 1.01 KB | yogeshmpawar |
Comments
Comment #1
YesCT CreditAttribution: YesCT commentedchanges to a warning. current proposed warning: "There is data for this field in the database. Some changes to global field settings should no longer be made and might result in loss of data."
Also changes the help text. "These settings apply to the _fieldname_ field everywhere it is used. These settings impact the way that data is stored in the database."
Questions:
Are both statements always both true?
Are settings here all dealing with how the data is stored in the database? Or are some of the settings on the edit tab also dealing with how the data is stored in the database?
Are settings here all shared across things (bundles/content types) that re-use a field? Is every shared field setting here? Or are some on the field edit tab? Are any here not shared and unique field instances settings?
I'm wondering if there might be shared settings that do not have to do with how the data is stored. Perhaps we just dont have a case like that, and we are not planning to.
Comment #2
YesCT CreditAttribution: YesCT commentedComment #3
jair CreditAttribution: jair commentedComment #4
yoroy CreditAttribution: yoroy commentedWhat's not ideal about using the word 'Some' is that it does not give any direction. In a way it might make this more annoying. Saying something bad might happen without a clue as to what or where is not helpful nor anymore specific.
I have no answer to your questions :)
Comment #5
tim.plunkett#1: drupal-warning_global_field_settings-1854990-1.patch queued for re-testing.
Comment #7
stefank CreditAttribution: stefank commentedRerolled patch from #1.
Comment #8
jhedstromI think this has to go to 8.1 since beta string freeze.
Comment #9
swentel CreditAttribution: swentel commentedString freeze is only to RC - unless that suddenly changed ?
Comment #10
jhedstromNope, I had it wrong--I misread another issue.
Comment #11
jecunningham2281 CreditAttribution: jecunningham2281 commentedComment #12
jecunningham2281 CreditAttribution: jecunningham2281 commentedRerolled patch against head. Runs clean now. Patch attached.
Comment #13
mikemiles86Comment #24
LendudeThis comment is wrong too, we should update it or just remove it, the code is pretty self explanatory right?
Comment #25
LendudeAlso needs a reroll
Comment #26
ankithashettyHere is the rerolled patch of #12. Also removed the comment as the code is self explanatory, just like suggested in #24.
Thanks!
Comment #28
Lendude@ankithashetty thanks! Reroll looks good.
Seems like we now also need to update the text in \Drupal\Tests\datetime\Functional\DateTimeFieldTest::testDateStorageSettings were we are testing for this.
Comment #29
yogeshmpawarTried to fix test failures.
Comment #31
yogeshmpawarAnother try to fix test failures.
Comment #32
ajaypratapsingh CreditAttribution: ajaypratapsingh at Srijan | A Material+ Company for Drupal India Association commented#31 patch is working fine for me on Drupal 9.3.x local machine and sharing screenshot...
issue can be moved to RTBC
Comment #35
needs-review-queue-bot CreditAttribution: needs-review-queue-bot as a volunteer commentedThe Needs Review Queue Bot tested this issue. It either no longer applies to Drupal core, or fails the Drupal core commit checks. Therefore, this issue status is now "Needs work".
Apart from a re-roll or rebase, this issue may need more work to address feedback in the issue or MR comments. To progress an issue, incorporate this feedback as part of the process of updating the issue. This helps other contributors to know what is outstanding.
Consult the Drupal Contributor Guide to find step-by-step guides for working with issues.