Closed (won't fix)
Project:
Facets
Version:
8.x-1.x-dev
Component:
Code
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Feature request
Assigned:
Unassigned
Issue tags:
Reporter:
Created:
21 Mar 2017 at 21:37 UTC
Updated:
20 Jul 2017 at 15:46 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent, Most recent file
Comments
Comment #2
flocondetoileA first attempt to demo the feature
Comment #3
flocondetoileComment #4
flocondetoileForgot to change the label
Comment #5
borisson_Overall this looks great, we need to write a javascript test for it though. Thanks!
This should probably also run trough a
tmethod?Comment #6
borisson_Back to NW for tests + small change
Comment #7
flocondetoileRe #5.
In fact this default option label is an user input, so this string must be translated from the translate UI (admin/config/search/facets/FACET_NAME/edit/translate/LANGUAGE/add).
But I noticed that this widget do not have a schema so actually we can not translate the label as we can for the dropdown widget.
Comment #8
flocondetoileWill add too the corresponding schema in the next iteration.
Comment #9
flocondetoilePatch reroll against HEAD + config schema added for datebasic widget. Default Label option is now translatable.
Back to need review for launching existing test, but still missing corresponding JavascriptTest.
I am not yet "comfortable" with JavascriptTest and I will try soon.
Comment #11
flocondetoileRelaunch failing tests
Comment #12
flocondetoileRelaunch tests with same patch #9
Comment #14
borisson_So the current tests are green, but we need to add test-coverage for this as well.
Comment #15
joachim commentedI think this is the wrong way to fix this. This means we have to add options to the date widget for all the other widgets -- list, dropdown, checkboxes. In the future, when other data types need special handling, the problem gets worse.
I've proposed an alternative at #2896229: move date handling to a processor, so date facets can use existing widgets.
Comment #16
borisson_Closing this issue in favor of the other suggestion.
This approach would lead to a ton of duplication and make the module harder to maintain - we're actively trying to avoid that.
Thanks for your work on this issue though @flocondetoile!