Overview

SDCs have config entities for each plugin created automatically on cache clear. However, SDCs plugins that cease to exist do not have components deleted, and SDCs that are updated only updated their prop_field_definitions but not any other metadata.

Proposed resolution

  • Disable SDC component config entities once the component no longer exists.
  • Decide how to update SDC component config entities when changes occur.

User interface changes

Command icon Show commands

Start within a Git clone of the project using the version control instructions.

Or, if you do not have SSH keys set up on git.drupalcode.org:

Comments

longwave created an issue. See original summary.

wim leers’s picture

Hm, let's keep the other one; it has history of how to work around it and shows the pain @kristen pol and others had to go through 😅

P.S.: #3464036: Component config entity should validate that the SDC actually (still) exists kinda already helps!

wim leers’s picture

Title: Handle update and delete of SingleDirectoryComponent `Component`s, plus missing config dependencies » [PP-1] Handle update and delete of SingleDirectoryComponent `Component`s, plus missing config dependencies
Status: Active » Postponed
Related issues: +#3519168: Handle components provided by ComponentSources EXPLICITLY disappearing — enables deleting JS components that are in use

larowlan made their first commit to this issue’s fork.

wim leers’s picture

Assigned: Unassigned » f.mazeikis
Status: Postponed » Needs review

AFAICT #3519168: Handle components provided by ComponentSources EXPLICITLY disappearing — enables deleting JS components that are in use did fix this, and SingleDirectoryComponentTest::testFallback added sufficient test coverage.

@f.mazeikis, can you confirm? 🙏

wim leers’s picture

Title: [PP-1] Handle update and delete of SingleDirectoryComponent `Component`s, plus missing config dependencies » Handle update and delete of SingleDirectoryComponent `Component`s, plus missing config dependencies
f.mazeikis’s picture

Status: Needs review » Closed (duplicate)

This issue is redundant and focus should be on #3470422.
Pretty sure @larowlan was supposed to push commit b4211966 to a branch on that issue, however by some mistake it ended up on a branch in this issue (#3519168 comment #45). We can close this one in favour of #3470422 and move the commit when/if relevant.

wim leers’s picture

Assigned: f.mazeikis » Unassigned
Issue tags: -stable blocker +beta blocker

Perfect, thanks!