Two extensions may provide a config item of the same type and name. Currently, PreExistingConfigException prevents those modules from both being installed on the same site. With recipes, there may be edge cases where special handling is needed. TBD: is this just an implementation detail, in which case we don't need to worry about it at this point, or might it require any change to the recipe format?
Scenario 1: Re-provide the same config item. PreExistingConfigException should not be triggered.
Scenario 2: Provide a conflicting config item. PreExistingConfigException should be triggered.
An implementation detail could be: config items are installed only from extensions that a recipe explicitly installs. In scenario 2, that would clarify which of the two versions of item W should be installed. But does that help determine whether a PreExistingConfigException should be triggered?
Or should a recipe specify the extension that a particular config item is installed from?
Should we store a list of config items previously installed via recipes and the extension that provided them?
Or is scenario 1 just not supported?
Closed: outdated
11.0
Documentation
Not all content is available!
It's likely this issue predates Contrib.social: some issue and comment data are missing.
Can this be closed not that #3292282: Extend recipe runner to create configuration provided in the recipe's /config folder → landed?
No response. Closing as outdated. Please re-open if you don't agree.