Problem/Motivation

The computer field used for the "occurrence" of the indexed date implies it is a daterange, however it cannot be formatted as such. It is purely plain text.

It's possible this is a limitation of the computed field module, but it's worth investigating if it's possible regardless.

Steps to reproduce

  1. Set up and index and view using the occurrence data
  2. Select the occurrence as a field in the view
  3. See there are no formatting options you would expect from a date

Proposed resolution

Would be nice if you could format it using Smart Date.

Remaining tasks

  1. Investigate if it's possible
  2. Document findings
  3. Implement

Comments

nickdjm created an issue. See original summary.

nickdjm’s picture

nickdjm
he/him
commented
Related issues: +#3499388: Data is not formattable when used as a field.

I'm referencing https://www.drupal.org/project/date_recur_search_api/issues/3499388 here just because it appears as though this module does the exact same thing, and has the exact same problem.

I'll start by looking at the Search API is doing in my setup and go from there.

nickdjm’s picture

nickdjm
he/him
commented
Related issues: +#3353719: Add support for rendering computed fields to the "field" views field handler

This definitely is an issue with Search API. I found an issue that discusses it here: https://www.drupal.org/project/search_api/issues/3353719

I also have experimented with removing Search API's check for "isComputed" and it works perfectly, allowing me to format the occurrence field with all available formatters.

nickdjm’s picture

nickdjm
he/him
commented
Component: User interface » Code
Status: Active » Postponed

This issue is essentially "works as designed" as far as this project is concerned, and must wait for Search API to decided what to do before it'll work. Until then I'm going to mark this as postponed. I don't want to outright close this issue since I think it's valid people will look for this exact functionality.

If no action is taken on Search API's part, then maybe it'll be worth coming up with a work-around using some search api or view hooks- or at the very least pointing to the above issue in documentation.