Term references should be incorporated into D6 node migration

Created on 20 October 2015, over 9 years ago
Updated 21 May 2025, 13 days ago

Problem/Motivation

Right now, the relationships between taxonomy terms and nodes are migrated in their own migrations - the d6_term_node and d6_term_node_revision templates are instantiated once for each vocabulary (or is it each vocabulry/node type combination?). This means that during a migration process, any given node is saved not only by the node migration, but is again saved for each vocabulary it references, which is... inefficient. It's also illogical - the node migration should be complete in itself and not require additional migrations to "finish" it. The node migrations should pull in and map the term_node relationships directly.

Proposed resolution

Do it.

Remaining tasks

Add tests for new solution
Add deprecation notices to old
Remove old term node migration (but keep the source for BC)
Make sure there are BC tests for term node migrations

User interface changes

n/a

API changes

n/a

Data model changes

n/a

πŸ“Œ Task
Status

Postponed

Version

11.0 πŸ”₯

Component

migration system

Created by

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States mikeryan Murphysboro, IL, USA

Live updates comments and jobs are added and updated live.
  • Performance

    It affects performance. It is often combined with the Needs profiling tag.

  • Needs change record

    A change record needs to be drafted before an issue is committed. Note: Change records used to be called change notifications.

  • Needs tests

    The change is currently missing an automated test that fails when run with the original code, and succeeds when the bug has been fixed.

Sign in to follow issues

Comments & Activities

Not all content is available!

It's likely this issue predates Contrib.social: some issue and comment data are missing.

Production build 0.71.5 2024