Requirements:

  • Some config entites don't have full validation yet
  • Some config entities might not want to be exposed at all?

Coming from #2300677: JSON:API POST/PATCH support for fully validatable config entities

Comments

dawehner created an issue. See original summary.

Sam152’s picture

I think it would almost be more sensible to discuss "what are the bare minimum requirements a config entity has to implement for REST support to even be an option". We can come up with a way to opt out, but unless we have a way of evaluating if a config entity is "rest ready", then it's a tricky discussion/evaluation to have for each one. I think answering this will largely come down to how some of the key technical challenges are going to be tackled, which looks like it's being discussed in the parent issue.

dawehner’s picture

For me these points would be helpful:

a) All form validation got checked and ensured it got moved to constraints
b) All form element based validation (a select list ...) got checked and got moved to constraints
c) We have a basic kernel test which tests validation on typed data level ...

Version: 8.5.x-dev » 8.6.x-dev

Drupal 8.5.0-alpha1 will be released the week of January 17, 2018, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted against the 8.6.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal 8 minor version schedule and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 8 release cycle.

gabesullice’s picture

I'd like to propose #2936714: Entity type definitions cannot be set as 'internal' as the mechanism for config entities to do this. Leaving this issue for discussion about "what are the bare minimum requirements a config entity has to implement for REST support to even be an option"

Wim Leers’s picture

dawehner’s picture

Status: Active » Reviewed & tested by the community

I'm totally happy with the solution outlined by @gabesullice in #5
Should we mark it as RTBC and be done with it?

Gábor Hojtsy’s picture

Version: 8.6.x-dev » 8.5.x-dev
Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Closed (duplicate)

In that case, this would be a duplicate of #2936714: Entity type definitions cannot be set as 'internal'? In terms of code/docs (policy) update that is.