Problem/Motivation

In a drush config context exporting means to create a file on disk that stores configuration for the database. The structure_sync module changes this terminology in an un-intuitive way. The structure_sync module calls exporting "database content modification". This is very misleading.

Steps to reproduce

1. `drush eb`
2. git diff
3. Git does not show any differences because nothing was written to disk.

Proposed resolution

Please change all nomenclature of exporting in structure_sync from "export" to "database config write". So for drush commands, in stead of `drush eb` it would be something like `drush cw_eb` or `drush sscw_eb` (standing for Structure Sync Config Write).

Developers expected workflow is/was much like `drush cex -y` , but with structure_sync it needs to be `drush eb && drush cex`.

If no renaming is done then I would suggest at least adding some documentation to the effect of how Structure Sync does NOT actually export anything (write to disk) but leaves that to `drush cex`.

Remaining tasks

  • Revise README.txt with appropriate procedure outline for use, including a description of the process and expected outcomes.
  • Add Module documentation on D.O. with full description and screenshots
  • Review Configuration documentation to select the best wording and make appropriate modifications

User interface changes

API changes

Data model changes

Comments

dshumaker created an issue. See original summary.

bsnodgrass’s picture

bsnodgrass commented
Issue summary: View changes

Thank you for this module! It provides an important function for site builders, particularly for teams when building out new features on existing websites. Since the structure items covered often originate in local development instances. Pushing these new entities in configuration, allows them to be incorporated into the production site without causing other configurations to produce warnings of missing items.

Renaming the UI elements would be a very positive change. I agree export is not the appropriate word to use, "database config write" is better. The configuration sync process is well documented and may use or provide better guidance on the exact wording.

I also second the idea of adding documentation and specific steps to the README.txt file for the module to make this more clear. I've had the comment more than once from others the process is confusing. @dshumaker is Spot On!

Happy to help solve this issue - I am updating the Issue Summary