Problem/Motivation
Using the standard install, the Comment field on articles is set to required, which results in the red asterisk appearing on the node edit form. This is fairly distracting when viewing the form, and since it only applies to the open/closed setting, it is not relevant at all as the field has a default. So I believe this is by mistake.
Proposed resolution
Update the install config so that this field is not required.
User interface changes
Removes the red asterisk from the field.
Before:

After:

| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #13 | Screen Shot 2018-01-23 at 3.35.17 PM.png | 23.53 KB | pameeela |
| #5 | Before_Varnish.png | 72.4 KB | riddhi.addweb |
| #5 | After_Varnish.png | 71.24 KB | riddhi.addweb |
| #2 | comment-required-2937980-2.patch | 518 bytes | pameeela |
| Screen Shot 2018-01-19 at 9.35.07 PM.png | 59.06 KB | pameeela |
Comments
Comment #2
pameeela commentedHere's a patch that fixes it... not sure whether this is correct though!
Comment #3
cilefen commentedComment #4
riddhi.addweb commented@pameeela, Thanks for the patch your patch works, exactly as described in above summary. I checked your Patch using simplytest.me & also attached the screenshots for the same.
Comment #5
riddhi.addweb commentedComment #7
cilefen commentedComment #9
pameeela commentedTrying one more time...
Comment #10
pameeela commentedAnyone know what's wrong here? Seems unlikely this change has caused any actual fails?
Comment #11
pameeela commentedI'm told by @larowlan these are unrelated fails so going back to RTBC.
Comment #12
larowlanCan we get a screenshot of how this looks with the field expanded when the form is originally loaded?
Should be defaulting to 2 which is 'Open'
Comment #13
pameeela commentedHere's a screenshot of it expanded, but it isn't expanded by default. The original screenshots show the default state when the form is loaded.
Comment #14
pameeela commentedSorry, per Slack I understand now :) You meant "Open" as the status for Comments.
Comment #15
pameeela commentedComment #18
larowlanCommitted as f69af23 and pushed to 8.6.x
Cherry-picked as cc8c7a8 and pushed to 8.5.x
I had originally thought that there may be a REST impact here, and that making sure the underlying data model required the field may be a factor.
However, the field is configurable and can be marked as not-required by an admin without any impact on the data model, as there is a default value configured for the field. This was demonstrated by @pameeela in #13. In addition REST deals with the lower-level field-type and not a specific field in the standard profile.
Thanks