Rules integration [#842846]

I believe there are a lot of advantages of adding support for the Rules module for i18n.

One such example I found today was when I used the Node Limit Number module to limit creation of nodes of certain content types to 1 per user. Since translated versions also counts as nodes the rule blocked the possibility to translate nodes by the same user.

A workaround for the problem can be found in this comment to the #586064: Node Limit Number for Drupal 6 - FEATURES REQUEST ticket for that module by adding custom PHP code to check if the new node is a translation or not.

It is not an optimal solution since it only works correct if the author of the original node and the translated is the same.

Right now I have set the content type to synch the author from the original to the translations as another workaround.

More information on how I solved this can be found in this blog post I wrote about it.

Since Rules also can be used to create workflows, among other things, adding a few condition rules to the i18n module would make a lot of elegant solutions possible.

Comment	File	Size	Author
#4	i18nsync-rules-integration.patch	2.24 KB	gnindl

Support from Acquia helps fund testing for Drupal Acquia logo

Comments

Comment #1

greg.harvey

English

CreditAttribution: greg.harvey commented 1 September 2010 at 10:35

Version:

6.x-1.5

» 6.x-1.x-dev

This will really help the i18n Auto Translate module as well. We have a 'bug' which is a direct result of Rules not having sufficient support for i18n. I was going to implement some rules stuff in our module, but that makes no sense as there'll be a lot of cross-over, so that stuff should really go in the core of i18n, here.

For reference, the issue I'm closing to take up on this one is here: #888654: Content without multilingual option activated gets translated as well

Comment #2

c-c-m CreditAttribution: c-c-m commented 1 September 2010 at 10:49

+1 to this feature :)

Comment #3

c-c-m CreditAttribution: c-c-m commented 20 October 2010 at 12:15

Could any of the mantainers provide any information about the status of this issue, please? Could you tell us if this issue has been put under consideration or if it has not been considered or, hopefully, you're working on it? Thank you very much for your help, I really think this makes a lot of sense.