- ๐ณ๐ฟNew Zealand xurizaemon ลtepoti, Aotearoa ๐
Thanks. If the README change feels helpful, or can be improved, let me know? That was a point of confusion for me using the module at first.
I'm trying to understand the methodology in place for this module, and hope to document it so we and others can work better with it.
(Great work, btw - simply amazing! I thought I had a handle on Workbench Moderation, but from this code I've come to realise there was more going on in the source system than I thought.)
This module dynamically introduces a dependency on migration "workbench_moderation_flow" migrations (in the project I'm looking at, this is "workbench_moderation_flow:draft"). This means that a given configuration migration should be run in order to migrate nodes with workbench migrations applied in the source site, and that during the migration process the workflow which it outputs will be present in the destination site.
Our current project aims to use migrations only for content and to not migrate configuration, so at first I was thrown by this: why did we need a migration that was going to create an additional workflow in the destination site? However, I now believe that the generated content moderation workflow is used to calculate transitions on the source nodes, based on the source node type and configuration. It is more correct to apply the historic workbench moderation workflow to the source dataset than it would be to calculate transitions using a content moderation workflow - is that the logic?
For our project, this is workable: execute drush migrate:import workbench_moderation_flow:draft before commencing migrations, then execute drush -y config:import afterwards; the config import will remove the generated migration.
A nice feature would be to permit configuration of node migrations to either apply the dynamic dependency OR specify the Content Moderation workflow which should be used to calculate transitions for the source nodes.
Sorry for the unstructured "issue". We expect to use this module for upcoming migrations and I'd be happy to improve docs or even the codebase, now I've wrapped my head around it. This question is an attempt to kick that off :)
Needs review
1.0
Support request
Not all content is available!
It's likely this issue predates Contrib.social: some issue and comment data are missing.
Thanks. If the README change feels helpful, or can be improved, let me know? That was a point of confusion for me using the module at first.