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.
Motivation :
During the two “taxonomy” cases test expose in the Study Case Issue, we can see that Taxonomy Vocabularies had handled differently than other fieldable entities
Actual situation :
As observed in the two cases on Taxonomy, the management of taxonomy vocabularies configuration are not really “stable” and “packaged”.
- If taxonomy vocabularies are treated as a “basic configuration” the attached field will be packed in “core” package and the declaration of vocabularies in “site” package.
- If taxonomy vocabularies are treated like a “basic type” ( like other fieldable entities) the packaging generate circular dependencies.
Question :
I understand the comment in issue #2579753 but can it be a solution to manage “empty” vocabulary in a different way than a “fielded” vocabulary ?
Comments
Comment #2
nedjoThanks for the idea. Please reformat this according to the Issue Summary Template.
It sounds like the feature request is:
However, I'm doubtful that would make any practical difference, since it's rare, isn't it, to have a fieldable bundle that has no field? For example, a vocabulary typically has at least a description field.
Comment #3
nedjoComment #4
DrDam CreditAttribution: DrDam commentedUpdate :
2 issus proposing Assignement Plugin can correct this :
https://www.drupal.org/project/features/issues/2954175
https://www.drupal.org/project/features/issues/2953696