- πΊπΈUnited States kevinquillen
Probably not since modals are config entities, not content entities. Config entities are not field-able.
- π§π·Brazil larruda
@Alice Andrade anything to share?
@renatog my fellow, any reason for being config entities?
this feature makes so much sense
- π§π·Brazil renatog Campinas
@larruda huge pleasure talking to you, master! π
any reason for being config entities?
To use configuration management
Explanation
- Version 8.x-2.19 β is using Content Entity ( ref )
- Migrated to Config Entity on 4.x at #3142963: [PLAN] Change Modal Entity from Content Entity to Config Entity β
- Motivation was to export Modals with
drush cex
like webform - Was evaluated pros / cons of Content Entity x Config Entity
- At the time we didn't find a "hard-reason" to use Content Entity
- On the other hand, exporting feature was something interesting
For this reasons the migration but I'm open to consider using Content Entity if we have a good justification
About making Modal fieldable; I truly agree that would be an important milestone for the project's growth
- π§π·Brazil larruda
Hey bro! good talking to you too :)
Thanks for the explanation, the reasons behind that decision seem valid, in particular the ability to export modals as configuration entities.
I've been experimenting https://www.drupal.org/project/single_content_sync β module which - you probably know - mimics that same behavior for content entities, and it's working good so far. Maybe that's a drop-in replacement for that in case we decide to invest in this change.
Also it's good to know this has already been done in 8.x-2.19, it's not a wish anymore but a reality then!
Does that mean from a very simplistic standpoint the next step would be to port that do D10 now?Wish you the best!!!