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

DrDam created an issue. See original summary.

nedjo’s picture

Category: Support request » Feature request

Thanks for the idea. Please reformat this according to the Issue Summary Template.

It sounds like the feature request is:

In the site assignment plugin's configuration form, add a radio element allowing an admin to configure the behavour of selected configuration types. They would be added (a) whether or not they have any fields or (b) only if no fields are attached to them.

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.

nedjo’s picture

Component: Code » Assignment Plugins
DrDam’s picture

Category: Feature request » Plan