Closed (fixed)
Project:
Rules
Version:
8.x-3.x-dev
Component:
Rules Core
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Task
Assigned:
Reporter:
Created:
2 Jan 2020 at 20:39 UTC
Updated:
24 Jan 2020 at 20:09 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent, Most recent file
Comments
Comment #2
tr commentedAfter applying this patch and turning on debug at /admin/config/workflow/rules/settings you should see debug logs of Rules execution. It wouldn't hurt to clear your caches first ...
I have chosen to render this output on-screen using the system messenger service, in an "error" message. This makes the logs visible and hard to ignore. In D7, it was possible to accidentally leave debug logging on because it was inconspicuosly rendered in grey and black at the bottom of the screen, often below the fold.
Please try this out and let me know what can be improved. There are a number of things I know need work:
There are also two other bugs that are exposed now that you can actually see the debug ouput, but these are not a result of this patch:
In regards to these last two, they are both because I don't know how to get a link to the running Reaction Rule from within the component that is being executed. I know I can do it by brute force, but this problem seems to be pointing to an architectural problem in D8 Rules. In D7 this was addressed by the RulesPluginUI, but I can't find the same capability in the D8 version of the Ui handler. I do NOT see fixing this as critical to this issue, because even with these two things working this patch represents a major improvement to the usability of Rules. But if anyone can help me address this problem I would be grateful.
Comment #3
tr commentedSome cleanup.
Comment #4
tr commentedThis patch fixes the JavaScript and cleans up a few other things. This is the patch I'm likely to commit, unless I notice a problem with it.
I have the naming issue and the links fixed, but those fixes will be in a separate issue because as I said those aren't bugs with the code in this patch.
Comment #5
tr commentedAnd let's turn off the coding standards for those four lines, as the code intentionally uses t() in that manner and it's not an error in this case.
Comment #7
tr commentedCommitted.