Closed (fixed)
Project:
Rules
Version:
8.x-3.x-dev
Component:
Rules Core
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Task
Assigned:
Unassigned
Issue tags:
Reporter:
Created:
7 Aug 2014 at 14:16 UTC
Updated:
14 Dec 2015 at 12:24 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent
Comments
Comment #1
mariancalinro commentedComment #2
mariancalinro commentedComment #3
dasjoComment #4
dasjohey mariancalinro,
thank you for working on this! do you have code that you can share? please link it in the issue and update the assigned field if appropriate.
Comment #5
dasjoComment #6
diarmy commentedHey dasjo, I'll grab this one and post a link once I have some work to show you.
Comment #7
diarmy commentedInitial commit is here: https://github.com/diarmy/rules/tree/action-entity-fetch-9547355
Still lots to do obviously and I'll PR once it's ready for feedback.
Comment #8
dasjocool, glad to see you back diarmy! :)
Comment #9
a.milkovsky@diarmy, you can have a look at the similar Port "Fetch entity by id" action to D8. That might help ;-)
Comment #10
diarmy commentedHey @a.milkovsky,
That is immensely helpful, particularly the test setup(), so a huge thankyou!
@dasjo, it's good to be back.
Comment #11
diarmy commentedHi all
This is now ready for review: The PR is at https://github.com/fago/rules/pull/131
Many thanks.
Comment #12
dasjosetting to needs work based on the comments on the pull request
Comment #13
diarmy commentedComment #14
diarmy commentedHi guys, I've made a few updates in accordance with the comments so this is ready for review again.
Comment #15
klausiLeft a couple of comments on the pull request, mostly short array syntax. You should also merge in 8.x-3.x so that the travis ci tests pass again.
Comment #16
diarmy commentedThanks, klausi. I've made those short array syntax corrections and merged in 8.x-3.x.
Comment #17
dasjoHi diarmy, could you update us about the status here? thanks
Comment #18
dasjoUnassigning for drupaldevdays sprints, the latest can be found here
https://github.com/diarmy/rules/branches
Comment #19
diarmy commentedHey dasjo, klausi pointed out a handful of array syntax issues last week which I corrected, so this may well be ready to merge. If not, please point out any other issues there may be with it. I am available to work on this today, so will re-assign to myself.
Comment #20
miklI've fixed the passing tests, new PR at https://github.com/fago/rules/pull/157 – could you take a look, maybe?
Comment #21
diarmy commentedMikl, I'll unassign as it looks like you are doing a great job. Good luck!
Comment #22
miklOk, sorry for the confusion, I started working on it before your reply (#19) :)
Comment #23
klausiComment #24
miklIt should all be done now, and the tests pass on Travis :)
Comment #26
klausiMerged, thanks!
Comment #28
fagoRe-opening for addressing the todo of refining provided entity context. Check the d7 info alter, implement like it's done for
FetchEntityById(seerefineContextDefinitions()) and add test coverage for it.Comment #29
Anonymous (not verified) commentedEntityFetchByField has the refineContextDefinition in it which fago wrote as an example, it is not fetch by id as suggested above. Please could you confirm what else is necessary on this action thanks.
Comment #30
bogdan.racz commentedComment #31
bogdan.racz commentedI've added a new pull request here: https://github.com/fago/rules/pull/294
I've added refineContextDefinitions() in the "fetch by id" action and tests for, also I've updated a found typo in testRefiningContextDefinitions in EntityFetchByFieldTest.
Please review.
Comment #32
klausiLooks mostly good, but the tests are failing. Looks like you forgot to rename something in the test?
Comment #33
mariancalinro commentedhttps://github.com/fago/rules/pull/294 is updated, and the tests pass
Comment #34
bogdan.racz commentedComment #35
klausimerge conflict in the pull request, can you resolve and push?
Comment #36
bogdan.racz commentedComment #37
bogdan.racz commentedFixed the merge conflict. Please review: https://github.com/fago/rules/pull/294
Comment #38
klausiAlmost ready, left a comment there!
Comment #39
bogdan.racz commentedRemoved the unused use statement.
Comment #41
klausimerged, thanks!