Steps to reproduce:
- Go to a node with a body field and the IPE available to your user
- Click "Customize this page"
- Click the settings icon on the body field
- Change the content in the WYSIWYG, and notice the changes appear in the preview
- Click "Continue", and notice the change is still in the preview
- Click "Finish"
- Notice that in the IPE, it's not showing the changes!
- Click "Save"
- Notice that the changes aren't on the page!
I'm not sure at what point we broke FAPE, because we have no tests for it. :-/ This feels like it might be related to #2443499: User profile: Unable to chage image field style formatter options because they don't get saved or #2398347: Panopoly Magic abuses FPP revisions but I haven't actually dug into it yet.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #11 | panopoly_test-fape-2459163-11.patch | 5.8 KB | dsnopek |
| #8 | editing_body_of_node_in-2459163-8.patch | 1.05 KB | mglaman |
Comments
Comment #1
dsnopekThe last working version was from Panopoly 1.18!
Comment #2
dsnopekBecause this is a relatively recent regression, I'm marking this as Critical. Hopefully, we'll be able to get to it at the sprint!
Comment #3
bwood commentedComment #4
bwood commentedComment #5
mglamanThis logic breaks the FAPE from #2443499: User profile: Unable to chage image field style formatter options because they don't get saved
Comment #6
mglamanPatch
Comment #7
mglamanPatch breaks test. Logic needs revisions.
Comment #8
mglamanTalked with dsnopek, moved the display cache check inside of the body/entity check to provide fix for the image formatter issue.
Comment #9
dsnopekTrying this patch with the existing tests on Travis:
https://travis-ci.org/panopoly/panopoly/builds/63330570
This still needs Behat tests for the issue itself. @bwood worked on this a bit at the sprint, but unfortunately didn't post his work-in-progress patch and now he's out on vacation. :-/
I'd prefer to not just start over, so I may make an exception to the "panopoly_magic changes must have tests" rule and just commit it. Or if I have the time, maybe I'll just write a new test. Not sure...
Comment #10
dsnopekComment #11
dsnopekI decided to take a stab at writing the test! Sorry, @bwood :-/
Anyway, attached is a patch which adds a test that fails without @mglaman's patch and passes with it.
EDIT: Here's a build on Travis-CI with these patches: https://travis-ci.org/panopoly/panopoly/builds/63347199
Comment #13
dsnopekAutomated tests came back successful! Committed. :-)
Comment #15
dsnopekPost-humously adding this to #2489306: [meta] Identify everything panopoly_magic is doing and create issues to implement tests for it