Views integration is broken for multi-value reference fields defined as base fields.

The following fields are created as configurable fields because of that:
- stores (commerce_product)
- variations (commerce_product)
- line_items (commerce_order)

If/once the issue gets fixed, those fields should be reverted to base fields.

Core issues: #2477899: Multiple valued Base fields won't work in Views, #2337515: Allow @FieldType to customize views data.
Initially documented in: #2421537-11: Convert subscriptions field to a base field

Comments

vasike’s picture

vasike
Location Ramnicu Valcea
commented
Title: Move Entity reference base fields to Configurable fields » Move unlimited Entity base fields to Configurable fields
Status: Active » Needs review

https://github.com/commerceguys/commerce/pull/171
and there is the pull request for this - it's about Store currencies & Order line items.

There are some changes: use "line_item" and "currency" for the field names
instead "line_items" & "currencies"

There was an issue with the email widget. There is also fix for this.

googletorp’s picture

googletorp commented

Would it be better to fix Views?

bojanz’s picture

bojanz commented

@googletorp
Berdir calls the change "unlikely to happen at this point", so I'd rather switch the fields back in 6 months than spend time on a dead end.

bojanz’s picture

bojanz commented
Status: Needs review » Fixed

Merged.

dwkitchen’s picture

dwkitchen commented
Title: Move unlimited Entity base fields to Configurable fields » Convert line_item field to base field [Blocked by Views]
Issue summary: View changes
Status: Fixed » Needs work
Related issues: +#2421537: Convert subscriptions field to a base field

I have moved this to needs work to identify the need to return these to Base field definitions once views has been fixed.

Otherwise when a new order type is created it won't have a line-item reference field and will brake the expected order functionality.

  • vasike committed 6cbe0ad on 8.x-2.x 
    Issue #2466893 by bojanz, vasike: Move unlimited Entity reference base...
  • bojanz committed 7f177a6 on 8.x-2.x
    Merge pull request #171 from vasike/8.x-2.x-unlimited-entity-reference...
bojanz’s picture

bojanz commented
Title: Convert line_item field to base field [Blocked by Views] » Convert multi-value configurable reference fields to base fields
Issue summary: View changes
Status: Needs work » Postponed
bojanz’s picture

bojanz commented
Status: Postponed » Active

The main part of the fix (#2644088: DefaultTableMapping::getFieldTableName does not report table for fields with dedicated storage) is in Drupal 8.1.0.
The remaining work (#2477899) is small.
We should push that patch, and do this conversion before alpha5/beta1.

fenstrat’s picture

fenstrat
he/him
Primary language English
Location Australia
commented

#2477899: Multiple valued Base fields won't work in Views is in core for both 8.1 and 8.2. So this should mostly be a matter of reverting #6 right?

bojanz’s picture

bojanz commented

We also need #2337515: Allow @FieldType to customize views data in order to have Views integration.

fenstrat’s picture

fenstrat
he/him
Primary language English
Location Australia
commented
Issue summary: View changes
Related issues: +#2337515: Allow @FieldType to customize views data

Right. So is it worth doing the revert here before #2337515: Allow @FieldType to customize views data is in, or should this be mark as postponed?

bojanz’s picture

bojanz commented

It's pretty obvious that #2337515: Allow @FieldType to customize views data won't land in time for our beta (or won't land in the right branch, it might be 8.3.x material)

That means we have two options here:
1) Try to add the views data for our fields in some other way (working around the problem)
2) Do nothing and continue with the current approach

I would like to at least look into #1 in the near future.

bojanz’s picture

bojanz commented
Status: Active » Closed (won't fix)

I tried. Core still isn't ready, it just doesn't work. Now that we're in beta, this ship has sailed.

googletorp’s picture

googletorp commented

+1, We'll do it for Drupal 9. (I did this on a project and can say that the hazzle is just not worth it).