Closed (fixed)
Project:
Weight
Version:
6.x-1.x-dev
Component:
Code
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Task
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
14 Oct 2008 at 05:27 UTC
Updated:
8 Feb 2009 at 23:10 UTC
Ah well... I know it is always better to split multiple changes in multiple smaller patches. However, I needed this immediately, so here's a patch that includes multiple small improvements:
Let me know what you think of this. ;-)
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| weight-cleanup.patch | 13.05 KB | David Lesieur |
Comments
Comment #1
nancydruSee also #318625: PHP notices.
Comment #2
nancydruWhat is the rationale for moving the fieldset to the bottom of the Publishing options fieldset?
I specifically called the field "Node Weight" because some modules (e.g. WebLinks and FAQ) implement a "Weight" field of their own.
Comment #3
nancydruI have applied this to 6.x only. If someone wants to try to back-port this, please submit a patch.
Comment #4
nancydruI have just checked and if someone doesn't have "administer nodes" they don't get the Workflow options, and therefore no weights.
Comment #5
nancydruComment #6
David Lesieur commentedOops, right, I had overlooked that permission issue.
Yet the idea was that weight is really a publishing detail and, at least to me, does not deserve being given more emphasis than the other publishing options by having its own fieldset.
Also, as I had reported, depending on how your node types are setup, the Weight fieldset could appear in the midst of CCK fields, at an illogical position.
If the Publishing options fieldset is to be the right place for the weight option as I suggest, then perhaps Weight could create that fieldset when it's not already present in the node form. That way people without the Administer nodes permission would still get the weight option.
Comment #7
nancydruI put it back like it was for now. I'll have to think about how I'd like to do this. To me, this field is just as important as the "Input Format" so it should be up there, but I can see your point too. Maybe it should be a setting.
Comment #8
David Lesieur commentedYes, both ways are valid. However, a setting might not be worth the effort since one can already re-arrange the form in a custom module through hook_form_alter(). I guess we'll never cover all the use cases, so it's probably better to keep things simple. Personally, I wouldn't mind you marked the issue as 'fixed'.
Comment #9
nancydruIt took longer to test than to write. Please test it out when you get a chance.