This might be a duplicate of #3115218: Module not taking workflow transitions into account
The widget to allow scheduling of workflow transitions is allowing a user to choose options that are not actually configured transitions.
For instance, in my Workflow configration, I have no Draft -> Archived transition.
Yet, a user can schedule a Draft -> Archived via this widget, and it's somewhat hidden why it doesn't work when a user schedules it in this manner.In an ideal world, the options in the widget should be the same workflow transition options in the standard Content moderation dropdown (shown above this module's widget), that takes into account the configured workflow states and transitions, and user permissions for using those transitions.
At the very least, perhaps some error handling or explanation of why the scheduled content isn't actually transitioning, because it's trying to perform an action that can't be done because there isn't a transition actually configured for it.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #4 | lightning_workflow-take_workflow_transitions_into_account-3182093-4.patch | 1.12 KB | nord102 |
| #2 | take-workflow-transitions-into-account-3182093-1.patch | 246.71 KB | nicothezulu |
Comments
Comment #2
nicothezulu commentedPlease check out the attached patch
Comment #3
nicothezulu commentedComment #4
nord102I have created a patch, which is essentially the same patch I created from #3115218-2: Module not taking workflow transitions into account, but applied to this module. It takes some inspiration from how the transition is currently being validated on the stand-alone Lightning Scheduler module.
Comment #5
nord102Comment #6
phenaproximaComment #7
kaszarobertNeeds a reroll. Also, when adding multiple transitions, this would limit editors as the list will contain only the next valid transition from the current node state. It would be awesome if the UI would enable users to select valid next states only even if multiple transitions are added.
Comment #8
kaszarobertOh, there's actually an older issue with the same exact thing duplicated, let's continue just there: