Provide a relationship for each entity reference field.

+++ b/core/modules/entity_reference/entity_reference.views.inc
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+      'field field' => $field['field_name'] . '_tid',

'_target_id' ;)

Also moving to the new component.

Shouldn't this be a beta blocker? I believe this is essential functionality for entity reference. Will this be fixed before beta?

I agree with nicxvan about this being a beta blocker. The value of having entity relationships is core is joining those relationships in views (now in core).

This simply missing functionality that can be easily added at any point, it dosn't involve storage or API's, so there's no need for this to block beta.

If you want to see this moving forward, try it out, give feedback and try to fix those failing tests.

I'll give this one a try

here is a small reroll.. it's my first attempt at contributing something, let's see what happens with the testbot

Ok, uploading interdiff with patch.

Any chances that the exception is related to https://drupal.org/node/1783692 ?

oh please delete me.

Joining this issue. I'll see how i can help this.

I'll bit a bit busy for the next 10 days, so if in the meanwhile someone wants to help, it'll defintiely speed up the process.

I've made some progress since the last patch i posted, but they aren't really ready for posting.

IMO, the next thing to do is to convert the field_create_field() function ( called in EntityReferenceRelationshipTest::setUp() ) to use the new entity API.
After some searches, it looks like we need to use the function

entity_create('field_config', $field)->save();

@Sifro - if you made any progress i think you should post it any way. This still a progress you made :)

Can't finish it in the short term because of unexpected workload... if someone wants to take this, feel free to do it.

@RoySegall: it's not worth it to post an interdiff with the latest minor changes I've made, as they don't really fix any failures.

However, this is what I was working on: in EntityReferenceRelationshipTest::setUp()....

 field_create_field($field);

became

    $field = array(
      'translatable' => FALSE,
      'entity_type' => 'entity_test',
      'settings' => array(
        'target_type' => 'entity_test',
      ),
      'name' => 'field_test',
      'type' => 'entity_reference',
      'cardinality' => 'FIELD_CARDINALITY_UNLIMITED',
    );

entity_create('field_config', $field)->save();

and...

field_create_instance($instance);

became...

  $instance = array(
      'entity_type' => 'entity_test',
      'field_name' => 'field_test',
      'bundle' => 'entity_test',
      'widget' => array(
        'type' => 'options_select',
      ),
      'settings' => array(
        'handler' => 'default',
        'handler_settings' => array(),
      ),
    );

entity_create('field_instance_config', $instance)->save();

For some reasons, it still doesn't work, and couldn't figure out why :(

Yeah, this was pretty old :)

Tests is now passing again for me, might still need more changes...

And the actual patch...

Nothing but nitpicks, this looks good.

Also, the issue summary doesn't exist.

1. +++ b/core/modules/entity_reference/entity_reference.views.inc
   @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
   +  $entity_manager = Drupal::entityManager();
   

   \Drupal

2. +++ b/core/modules/entity_reference/entity_reference.views.inc
   @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
   +      '@field_name' => $field->getName()
   

   Missing comma

3. +++ b/core/modules/entity_reference/src/Tests/Views/EntityReferenceRelationshipTest.php
   @@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
   + * @see entity_reference_field_views_data
   

   Missing ()

4. +++ b/core/modules/entity_reference/src/Tests/Views/EntityReferenceRelationshipTest.php
   @@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
   +  public static function getInfo() {
   ...
   +  protected function setUp() {
   

   {@inheritdoc}

Thanks for the review, fixed that and also made it a unit/kerneltest, 9s => 2s.

1. +++ b/core/modules/entity_reference/src/Tests/Views/EntityReferenceRelationshipTest.php
   @@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
   +    $entity_0 = $entity_storage->create(array());
   ...
   +    $entity = $entity_storage->create(array());
   ...
   +    $entity = $entity_storage->create(array('field_test' => $entity->id()));
   

   weird that one is entity_0 and the others are entity. I know the first one is used to get referenced. Maybe we can call it $referenced_entity?

2. +++ b/core/modules/entity_reference/src/Tests/Views/EntityReferenceRelationshipTest.php
   @@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
   +    $views_data_field_test = $this->container->get('views.views_data')->get('entity_test__field_test');
   ...
   +    $views_data_entity_test = $this->container->get('views.views_data')->get('entity_test');
   

   You can use Views::viewsData()->get() is you like.

3. +++ b/core/modules/entity_reference/src/Tests/Views/EntityReferenceRelationshipTest.php
   @@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
   +    // Check an actually test view.
   

   'Check an actual test view' ?

4. +++ b/core/modules/entity_reference/src/Tests/Views/EntityReferenceRelationshipTest.php
   @@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
   +      $this->assertEqual($view->style_plugin->getField($index, 'id'), $this->entities[$index + 1]->id());
   ...
   +      $this->assertEqual($view->style_plugin->getField($index, 'id_1'), $index == 0 ? 0 : 1);
   ...
   +      $this->assertEqual($view->style_plugin->getField($index, 'id'), $this->entities[$index + 1]->id());
   ...
   +       $this->assertEqual($view->style_plugin->getField($index, 'id_1'), $index == 0 ? 0 : 1);
   

   maybe getFieldValue() would be better here? or just checking the result data directly?

1. Good point, found the _0 weird too when I first re-rolled this, renamed to $referenced_entity. also removed the @todo, I commented it out and it's no longer an issue but forgot to actually remove it and the @todo.
2. Updated.
3. Yeah, fixed.
4. getFieldValue() sounds nice, but it's a protected method. And not sure that I should be accessing the data result directly?

Oh yeah. Forgot that is a protected method.. :)

What's wrong with just looking at data directly? The tests are about the relationship data, not style plugins or field rendering.

Uhm, just tried it out and then forgot to change it back..

If you want to check the result data directly, please update the patch, I'm not exactly sure how to do it properly :)

ok :) I just mean something like this. I added a couple of comments too.

Some small quibbles.

Updated issue summary, not much to write I think?

Nice tests. I think the improvements since #25 are good.

1. +++ b/core/modules/entity_reference/entity_reference.views.inc
   @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
   +    $target_type = $field->getSetting('target_type');
   +    $target_entity_type = $entity_manager->getDefinition($target_type);
   

   These are very bad variable names. If we do need both variables the former should be called $target_entity_type_id. Or it should be called $target_type_id and the latter should be called $target_type.

2. +++ b/core/modules/entity_reference/entity_reference.views.inc
   @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
   +    // Provide a relationship from field entity type to the referenced entity
   +    // type.
   ...
   +    // Provide a relationship from the referenced entity type to the field
   +    // entity type.
   

   As FieldConfig implements EntityInterface speaking of a "field entity type" is very, very confusing. Let's call this the "entity type with the entity reference field" vs. the "entity type that is referenced by the field".

3. +++ b/core/modules/entity_reference/entity_reference.views.inc
   @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
   +    $pseudo_field_name = 'reverse_' . $field->getTargetEntityTypeId() . '__' . $field->getName();
   

   Seems a bit inconsistent to use a single underscore and a double underscore as separators in a single string?!

4. +++ b/core/modules/entity_reference/entity_reference.views.inc
   @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
   +      'title' => t('@label using @field_name', array(
   +        '@label' => $target_entity_type->getLabel(),
   +        '@field_name' => $field->getName(),
   +      )),
   +      'help' => t('Relate each @label with a @field_name.', array(
   +        '@label' => $target_entity_type->getLabel(),
   +        '@field_name' => $field->getName(),
   +      )),
   

   $args should be used here as well.

Nice try.

ok, I renamed the first variable to $target_entity_type_id - which I think is totally accurate. That's what it is. $target_entity_type is now fine IMO. Updated doc comments, replaced $arg usage, and used double underscore to separate the reverse pseudo table name. A couple of other small tweaks like the title and description of the tests. Since we are really just testing the data integration and not a new handler.

Two interdiffs because I forgot to include the tests changes and was too lazy to roll back into one... sorry! :p

Awesome, thanks a lot. Was RTBC before, so marking RTBC again.

50: 1906806-50.patch queued for re-testing.

Committed 7ba018f and pushed to 8.x. Thanks!

Am I missing something? I am still unable to create a backward reference (formerly referred to in D7 as "A bridge to the Content entity that is referenced via *field_machine_name*").

I've got a content type Artist and another content type Album, which has a Content Reference field called "artist". In my Album view, I cannot find a backward relationship ("bridge") that points to the related Artist entity to access the Artist fields. Is there some special configuration I am missing, perhaps?

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: There is no "bridge" option. When creating the relationship, I was looking for a "relate" option, but it turns out that I should have been looking for a "reference" option. Once I searched for "refer" when creating a new relationship, I saw an option for "Content referenced from field_album_artist", which allowed me to access the necessary fields.