Support for Drupal 7 is ending on 5 January 2025—it’s time to migrate to Drupal 10! Learn about the many benefits of Drupal 10 and find migration tools in our resource center.
Take a look at the attached screenshot for the complete "base path" message.
Drupal 7.14
Entity API 7.x-1.0-rc3
Entity Translation 7.x-1.0-alpha2
Rules translation not enabled (i18n_string not installed)
Comment | File | Size | Author |
---|---|---|---|
#10 | et-settings_ux-1676716-10.interdiff.do_not_test.patch | 4.95 KB | plach |
#10 | et-settings_ux-1676716-10.patch | 9.74 KB | plach |
#8 | et-settings_ux-1676716-8.patch | 6.35 KB | plach |
entity_translation_rules_config_error.jpg | 34.46 KB | quiptime |
Comments
Comment #1
quiptime CreditAttribution: quiptime commented+1
Comment #2
quiptime CreditAttribution: quiptime commentedComment #3
klausiI guess Entity Translation should not list configuration entities. It does not make sense to translate a rule configuration entity?
Comment #4
quiptime CreditAttribution: quiptime commentedIt definitely makes sense.
As example:
Comment #5
quiptime CreditAttribution: quiptime commentedComment #6
plachWe have two issues here: one is the ability to translate the Rules configuration and one is that ET should not list as translatable types the entity that do not support translation via ET.
@klausi:
I never tried
rules_i18n
but I know it relies on i18n's string translation. Does it cover the use case presented by @quiptime? If so, I'd say Rules do not need to integrate with ET as it already provides a translation method. ET just needs to stop listing Rules configurations among the translatable entity types. Otherwise Rules needs to integrate with ET and on that front there is nothing to do on the ET side (besides fixing the UX of the admin page).Comment #7
plachThis is surely not a major bug in any case.
Comment #8
plachHere is a patch: it hides from the list of entity types that can be enabled those not defining a valid base path.
Comment #9
bforchhammer CreditAttribution: bforchhammer commentedTheoretically there could be warnings unrelated to ET which would be cleared by this as well... should probably grab them before our validation and then insert them again if necessary.
Edit: it might be even better if we add a parameter to the validation function so we can avoid that call.
Comment #10
plachDone :)
Comment #11
bforchhammer CreditAttribution: bforchhammer commentedLooks good to me :)
Comment #12
plachCommitted and pushed, thanks.
Comment #18
bforchhammer CreditAttribution: bforchhammer commentedLong fixed...