Add a 'URL Redirects' tab to ALL applicable content entity edit forms (only nodes supported yet)

1. +++ b/redirect.module
   @@ -275,17 +277,28 @@ function redirect_source_link_get_status_messages(array $form, FormStateInterfac
   +      $field_ui_base_route = $entity_type->get('field_ui_base_route');
   ...
   +      if (!empty($field_ui_base_route) && !empty($canonical_link)) {
   

   Do we need to check the Field UI base route property? I have plenty of custom content entities that don't have field UI support.

2. +++ b/redirect.module
   @@ -293,23 +306,34 @@ function redirect_entity_extra_field_info() {
   +  $form_display_component = $form_object->getFormDisplay($form_state)->getComponent('url_redirects');
   ...
   +  if (!$entity->isNew() && \Drupal::currentUser()->hasPermission('administer redirects') && !empty($form_display_component)) {
   

   This seems new? It didn't check the display component before

3. +++ b/redirect.module
   @@ -293,23 +306,34 @@ function redirect_entity_extra_field_info() {
   +    // The path alias, e.g. /category/term-title
   +    $canonical_url = $entity->toUrl('canonical')->toString();
   ...
   -      ->findByDestinationUri(["internal:/node/$nid", "entity:node/$nid"]);
   +      ->findByDestinationUri(["internal:/$internal_url", "internal:$canonical_url", "entity:$entity_type_id/$entity_id"]);
   

   This also looks new? Adding lookup by path alias vs internal/canonical

4. +++ b/redirect.module
   @@ -293,23 +306,34 @@ function redirect_entity_extra_field_info() {
   -    $list_builder = \Drupal::service('entity_type.manager')->getListBuilder('redirect');
   +    $list_builder = \Drupal::service('entity_type.manager')->getListBuilder($entity_type_id);
   

   We need this to remain the redirect list builder, as it builds just those. Correct?

Works for me on taxonomy term edit forms. Thanks!

Also works for me on commerce product edit forms

Works for me, also tested on nodes & commerce product entity forms.

Works foe me also commerce product edit forms

1. +++ b/redirect.module
   @@ -293,18 +301,26 @@ function redirect_entity_extra_field_info() {
   -  /** @var \Drupal\node\NodeInterface $node */
   -  $node = $form_state->getFormObject()->getEntity();
   -  if (!$node->isNew() && \Drupal::currentUser()->hasPermission('administer redirects')) {
   +function redirect_form_alter(&$form, FormStateInterface $form_state, $form_id) {
   +  /** @var \Drupal\Core\Entity\ContentEntityForm $form_object */
   +  $form_object = $form_state->getFormObject();
   +  if (!$form_state->getFormObject() instanceof ContentEntityForm || !in_array($form_object->getOperation(), ['edit', 'default'])) {
   +    return;
   +  }
    
   -    $nid = $node->id();
   +  $entity = $form_object->getEntity();
   

   I see that this, already now for node, doesn't contain a check whether the extra field is actually enabled.

   That is IMHO more relevant now with making this visible in many more places. Instead of hardcoding the operations, what you want to do is call $form_object->getFormDisplay()->getComponent('url_redirects').

   I'd also suggest to to add visible => $entity_type->id() == 'node' so that this doesn't change on existing sites automatically.

2. +++ b/redirect.module
   @@ -293,18 +301,26 @@ function redirect_entity_extra_field_info() {
   -    // Find redirects to this node.
   +    // The internal url, e.g. taxonomy/term/1 (NOTE: doesn't include initial forward slash, it is added below)
   

   nitpick: comment over 80 characters.

Patch #11 works well for me as well.

I attached a new patch with the change for $form_object->getFormDisplay()->getComponent('url_redirects'), I just had to pass the form state to getFormDisplay which is a mandatory argument.

And I broke the comment on two lines.

And the only thing left that needs to be addressed is the visible => $entity_type->id() == 'node'. The URL redirects stayed visible for me even with the patch so I am not 100% sure of what was needed there.

@Berdir Apparently $form_object->getFormDisplay($form_state)->getComponent('url_redirects') is not enough.
This behavior is bleeding into my webforms when logged in and it was not happening with #11.

Peolple, please let me know: why there is 2 files for patching? url-redirects-tab-3245137-18.patch and interdiff.txt. I need apply them all?

Theanx Ericchew!

#18 worked with terms

Yes this totally makes sense. I just searched for it on taxonomy term pages. Indeed this should be available on all kinds of entities that can be redirected! +1!

Could someone maybe turn the latest implementation into a MR?
We shouldn't work with patches anymore.

I converted the patch from #18 to an MR. There's no need to give me credit for doing that.

This needs tests. The existing functionality for the Node edit form has a test. It's possible that the test can be renamed and repurposed to check other entity types.

I added some new assertions to check for the Redirects element. I repurposed the existing Node form test for that purpose. Since Users are content entities, they also get the extra field with this patch. So I simply checked for its presence on the users' own edit forms.

I added the visibility check mentioned in #17 to the extra field. I think this is ready for review again.

Thanks for the tests @dcam, just had a short look at the code and added a comment. Nice to see this moving forward!

Could we check all core entity types to be sure it works there?

Rerolled the patch to work on the latest version.

The patch does not contain this line that was in the branch:

'visible' => $entity_type->id() == 'node',

That defies the purpose of the whole ticket to make it work with all entities and not just nodes.

OOps, I uploaded the wrong patch. This should work better with that one, sorry.

Looks like this needs re-rolled for 1.12

This look quite close to the finish line, maybe someone would like to carry it over? :)

@tonytheferg, the patch in #34 applies cleanly to 8.x-1.12 and 8.x-1.x-dev

@chris matthews I think the MR was meant. At least we should have a MR from the patch to review? Maybe someone could do that?

The MR should be ready for review now.