Since comparison of current path against a given string is one of the most common use cases for trigger modules like Rules, I was pretty sure at a first glance that this could not be a missing feature or bug and rather a documentation issue. But at the moment we hsould handle it as a feature request.
None of the testers we used to test, was able to set up a path condition like IS(NOT) /taxonomy/term or /user or something similar in a Rules setup to fire an action on init Drupal under the given path condition.
The assumption: In D8, the global site variable has not yet been implemented.
Comments
Comment #2
tr commentedI think I just explained this in #2975452: Redirect users to profile edit page after one-time login .
Also, I posted code there that essentially duplicates the functionality of that D7 additional module.
Comment #3
tr commentedComment #4
Adam Neutrik commentedThis is not a support request. If this functionality wasn't build in yet, it is a feature request. The assumption that this should be build in already and is maybe missing from the port is reasonable and could be considered as a bug. But since we handle missing features not ported yet rather as a "new" feature.
Comment #5
Adam Neutrik commentedComment #6
Adam Neutrik commentedAnd it finally has nothing to do with this one special use case linked in #2. It is rather a duplicate of #2245611: [META] Rules 8.x architecture with the plan to add the global site variable the issue reporter is still missing here.
Comment #7
Adam Neutrik commentedComment #8
tr commentedYou re-wrote the issue summary and removed the information I was referring to in #2. The original post said:
In #2, I pointed you to code that I wrote which does almost everything that addition module does.
In #2, I pointed you to code that I wrote which allows you to do exactly that. A thank you would be appreciated.
On the contrary - this issue summary says "Since comparison of current path against a given string is one of the most common use cases for trigger modules like Rules", and that's EXACTLY what was addressed in #2975452: Redirect users to profile edit page after one-time login where a solution to exactly that problem was shown complete with code and detailed descriptions of how to use that code.
Whatever you say - perhaps talk to you co-worker about how it's not a bug report either, which is what he chose as the original category. As far as I'm concerned, he asked for help and he received the help he asked for - that makes it a support request. I marked this "Fixed" because I provided a working solution to the original problem. "Closed (duplicate)" is fine too, since it duplicates what is in #2975452: Redirect users to profile edit page after one-time login .
Comment #9
dqd@TR: ?... This is not my co-worker. I do not really get what is going on here but it seems some folks start to get crazy when it's sommer. Maybe I misread it but it does not sound relaxed all in all here. So as I sad already somewhere else today, please everybody, calm down.
I am pretty sure the intention of #4 and #6 was to help and there is no reason to feel taken down by him or something like that. And I have to agree with him that I was not asking for help nor support at all :) I am rather the one who tries to help others, like you ;-) We even do not use Rules atm. We test. But we plan to provide donation and I am willing to add Company power (employees of mine) to get it rolling. So I was rather after starting to report for the tracker addition. But I choose a maybe to indeterminated phrasing with too much open questions for you to understand my real intension and I possibly missed the part in the roadmap to realize that this will become a duplicate anyway. An while I choose bug report I also stated that I am not sure if it IS a bug report clearly.
Help should be always appreciated. Also yours. So if it is this what you needed/wanted since you asked so dashed for that: Thank you for your try to help since your assumption was that somebody asked for it. Whatever my intension was (not that but). Yours was to help :-) Is this ok for you?
But I still do not know why you were so much after setting it to "support request" that much only because it brushes a topic you have already helped somewhere else with? (this is how it looks to me)? And in #8 you show parts of the edited original summary actually proofing that there was no real support request included. The use case you linked is ONE possible thing which you can do with the overall missing functionality I wanted to point to and I maybe used a maybe similar example (but as an example for further explanation. Not as something I needed help on).
BTW it is a common practise to optimize issue summaries (as you surely know), if issue contributors realize that the summary is possibly misleading or mixed up. And it was maybe more obvious to #4 than to you in the rush, that I was talking about a missing feature in comparision to the featureset of Rules D7. Which in my eyes is CLOSE to a bug, but as he kindly explained, in the eyes of some of the port contributors maybe rather a feature since not all features from versions before can be considered as ported automatically. What I fully agree with after rethinking from my maintainerchips. Which I handle that way, that there are port tracker issues and additional issues to link to, to see the roadmap getting finished. So my intension was to have this issue open for the case it should be added to the roadmap later. But I had the slidely feeling that I was not able to catch all discussions going on before. This is why I formulated it more as an "open" question kindly.
So there is no reason for getting upset nor confused for anyone. You both tried to help and nobody of you intended to take somebody down.