Show machine name in "Manage form display" and "Manage display" table row

Created on 30 August 2022, almost 2 years ago
Updated 2 July 2024, 11 days ago

Problem/Motivation

Field labels are not unique which can make managing form and view displays challenging if multiple fields have the same label.

There are usually two workarounds for now:

  • Open the console to check the machine name of a given table row
  • Open another browser tab to double check fields by their label and machine name

Steps to reproduce

  • Enable the Field UI module
  • Create two fields on any given content entity and give them the same label
    example: Go to Admin > Config > Account > Parameters and create a new field_phone field labelled Phone and a second field_cellphone labelled Phone
  • Go to the "Manage form display" or "Manage display"
  • Try to determine which row corresponds to which field
    Result: site builder can't tell which field is which
    Expectation: site builder can identify each field easily by its unique machine_name

Proposed resolution

Show the machine_name of each field in the table rows of "Manage form" and "Manage display" on all content entities.

Remaining tasks

User interface changes

There is a new column right to the first "Field" column (see capture below).

API changes

None.

Data model changes

None.

Release notes snippet

TBD

โœจ Feature request
Status

Fixed

Version

11.0 ๐Ÿ”ฅ

Component
Field UIย  โ†’

Last updated about 5 hours ago

Created by

๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ชGermany kulmjens

Live updates comments and jobs are added and updated live.
Sign in to follow issues

Merge Requests

Comments & Activities

Not all content is available!

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

  • First commit to issue fork.
  • Merge request !7612Resolve #3306820 "Show machine name" โ†’ (Closed) created by matthieuscarset
  • Status changed to Needs review 3 months ago
  • To keep consistency between all Field UI tabs, I suggest we add the Machine name column to Manage form and Manage display tables.

    I have not found any existing tests related to table headers or table rows' columns thus I have not added new tests. I guess it is not even necessary to check if this column exists ๐Ÿคท. If so, please feel free to remove the "Need tests" tag from this issue. If not and we want tests, please help find where I should add such a test.

    See attached MR !7612

  • Capture of the Manage form display with the new Machine name column:

  • Pipeline finished with Success
    3 months ago
    Total: 1025s
    #151434
  • Status changed to Needs work 3 months ago
  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States smustgrave

    Was previously tagged for issue summary update which will need to happen.

    As for the tests ManageDisplayTest.php seems like a perfect spot to me. Don't see a test case that perfectly matches so probably could just start a new one.

  • Assigned to matthieuscarset
  • Pipeline finished with Failed
    3 months ago
    Total: 177s
    #151890
  • Issue was unassigned.
  • Removing "Need tests" tag as relevant test was added to ManageDisplayTest.php.

    Pending code review, issue summary update and usability review

  • Pipeline finished with Success
    3 months ago
    Total: 1076s
    #151933
  • Status changed to Needs review 3 months ago
  • Issue summary updated.

    Marking as NR for Usability and Core reviews.

  • ๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ทFrance Bessonweb

    It's a good idea!

    +1 for me.

  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States bernardm28 Tennessee

    It's an interesting idea and would save some time as one starts theming an entity.
    Does it need to be there all the time? Maybe not, but it would be great to have it as a development option or have the ability to unhide it from somewhere on that table. Kind of hidden in plain site per se.

  • Status changed to Needs work 3 months ago
  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States dww

    Love this. Added a note about test efficiency to the MR. I don't think we need a whole new test (and therefore, complete install of Drupal) for 2 assertions. ๐Ÿ˜… Let's move these into an existing test to save time / CO2 / DA $.

    Otherwise, seems like a win to me, and probably very close to RTBC.

    Thanks!
    -Derek

  • Status changed to Needs review 3 months ago
  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States dww

    Looking at the rest of core/modules/field_ui/tests/src/Functional/ManageDisplayTest.php makes me cringe. Wow that's a lot of separate (tiny) test methods. ๐Ÿ˜ข Obviously out of scope to refactor all of this, but probably worth a follow-up.

    That said, I'm not sure what I'd suggest for this issue, so maybe adding a new test method is fine. Restoring NR, but it smells a little fishy to me. ๐Ÿ˜…

  • Status changed to Needs work 3 months ago
  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States smustgrave

    Hiding the patches

    Left some comments. Would agree that this could be a follow up for refactoring but think a good task would be to repurpose testSingleViewMode() into testManagerDisplaysInterface or something. Take the comment of the test now "Tests hiding the view modes fieldset when there's only one available." and make it a comment in the test. And obviously update the existing test description.

  • Pipeline finished with Canceled
    3 months ago
    Total: 152s
    #155390
  • Status changed to Needs review 3 months ago
  • Thank you for your reviews. I've updated the tests/assertions. Hoping it is acceptable now.

    Marking this issue as NR.

  • Pipeline finished with Failed
    3 months ago
    Total: 1107s
    #155394
  • Pipeline finished with Success
    3 months ago
    Total: 1080s
    #155426
  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States smustgrave

    Applied a small name change to the test.

    Rest seems fine to me so +1 but will still need usability.

  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States bernardm28 Tennessee

    What if Instead of having it's own column it displays as an html subscript

  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States smustgrave

    Like the idea as we know the machine name will be limited length. May want to wait for UX though. Posted in #ux in slack if anyone frees up

  • ๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎFinland simohell

    Having a separate column makes it easier to visually scan labels and machine names. I suppose there are pros and cons to both ways.

  • ๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ชGermany rkoller Nรผrnberg, Germany

    Usability review

    We discussed this issue at ๐Ÿ“Œ Drupal Usability Meeting 2024-04-26 Active . That issue will have a link to a recording of the meeting.

    For the record, the attendees at the usability meeting were @benjifisher, @BlackBamboo, @rkoller, @skaught, and @worldlinemine.

    If you want more feedback from the usability team, a good way to reach out is in the #ux channel in Slack.

    In general there was a clear consensus that it is convenient to have the machine name right in place. We've considered the point raised in a corresponding discussion in the #frontend channel on the Drupal slack that the Manage fields page is already providing the machine names. But on the other hand on the Manage form display page as well as the Manage display page you not only have the machine names for fields but also those for base fields. The machine names for base fields are harder to obtain, requiring turning on the debugging and using some sort of dump() function according to @mariohernandez. With the MR in place the machine names for base fields are available as well. So you don't have to switch in-between tabs/pages or open a second browser window anymore.

    We've also considered the suggestion raised by @bernardm28 in #28 โœจ Show machine name in "manage form display" and "manage display" table row Needs review moving the machine name from a dedicated column to the label column and display it as an html subscript (plus some aria as he added on the corresponding thread on Slack). That might save one column and horizontal screen real estate but on the other hand moving the machine name as a subscript underneath the label might entail other problems. The subscript would have to be labeled (not only by aria for screenreader users but also for sighted users) and just moving vertically through a column would announce the label and the machine name in a row for each cell. If a screenreader user just wants to get the machine names announced that would be difficult, since the label would always be prepended. So having a dedicated column for machine names requires a bit more horizontal screen real estate, but it is clearer, easier scan-able and less error-prone in particular for screen reader users. Each column is holding specific information and the user is able to navigate by keyboard deliberately retrieving the desired information.

    We've also taken a look on mobile view ports in combination with extra long labels and machine names. The machine names are getting wrapped same as labels.

    So overall we have no concerns with the MR and it looks good to go from our perspective. I'll remove the needs usability review tag again. The only thing I am unsure about is which status should be set. Since the code review task is not crossed of yet i'll leave the status at needs review.

  • Status changed to RTBC 3 months ago
  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States smustgrave

    Thanks @rkoller and usability team.

    All the feedback on the MR has been addressed and is functioning. Test coverage is also there. Believe this is good to go.

  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States xjm

    Crediting usability meeting participants.

  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States benjifisher Boston area
  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States BlackBamboo Washington DC
  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States xjm

    Saving other credits as well.

  • Status changed to Needs work about 2 months ago
  • ๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ‡ฟNew Zealand quietone New Zealand

    There is a comment that should be changes to be correct. Setting to needs work.

    The issue summary has an open item for needing a code review. This was pointed out in #28 as well. Has there been a code review?

  • Status changed to RTBC about 2 months ago
  • Pipeline finished with Failed
    about 2 months ago
    Total: 1019s
    #178832
  • Status changed to Needs work about 1 month ago
  • ๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡งUnited Kingdom longwave UK

    Tests are failing.

    As a usability fix and UI change this is too late for 10.3.0 now we are in RC, but it is still eligible for the beta phase of 11.0 and also for 10.4.

  • Status changed to Needs review about 1 month ago
  • I don't think failures are related to this code.

    All errors seem to be related to something broken in Umami.

    Example of a current failure: https://git.drupalcode.org/issue/drupal-3306820/-/jobs/1721378

    It's a shame to miss a minor version 10.3 because of an unrelated broken part ๐Ÿ˜“.

    How should I proceed to move this issue along?

  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States smustgrave

    Recommend rebasing

  • Sorry I'm not sure.

    Rebasing `issue/drupal-3306820:3306820-show-machine-name` over `11.x` ?

    This gives a 2k files conflict.

  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States smustgrave

    Need to rebase with origin/11.x

    Current MR is 300+ commits behind which may address the failures

  • Pipeline finished with Success
    about 1 month ago
    Total: 641s
    #194977
  • Status changed to RTBC about 1 month ago
  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States smustgrave

    Rebased seemed to address the unrelated failures.

    Test name appears to be updated.

    Code changes make sense for the task being updated.

  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States xjm

    As a usability fix and UI change this is too late for 10.3.0 now we are in RC, but it is still eligible for the beta phase of 11.0 and also for 10.4.

    Actually, it's a UI change, so not beta-eligible for 11.0. Also, UI changes aren't eligible for maintenance minors, which 10.4 is. So I think this is an 11.1 change.

  • Status changed to Needs work 25 days ago
  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States xjm

    I manually tested this and noticed something that I think needs work:

    When you compress the screen to a smaller size, before it hits the breakpoint where the new column would be hidden, the machine names start to wrap, which is something machine names shouldn't do.... but what's worse, it automatically hyphenates the machine names, which is definitely way confusing, because it makes you think the hyphens are a part of the machine name.

    So, I think we need to change the word-break or word-wrap behavior for the column, and ensure the column is hidden when some reasonable length of machine name does not fit, and that exceptionally long machine names are elided somehow (which I vaguely remember seeing elsewhere. To suggest a solution, I went to the Manage fields page... and discovered it has the same problem. So, I filed ๐Ÿ› Fix word-wrapping behavior of machine names in UI tables Active .

  • Status changed to RTBC 25 days ago
  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States xjm

    Did not mean to NW since I filed the followup myself.

    • xjm โ†’ committed e091a2fd on 11.x
      Issue #3306820 by matthieuscarset, kulmjens, smustgrave, bernardm28, xjm...
  • ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธUnited States xjm

    Committed to 11.x. Thanks!

  • Status changed to Fixed 25 days ago
  • ๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ‡ฟNew Zealand quietone New Zealand

    @xjm, thanks for making the followup. It saves me chasing up 'needs followup' for fixed issues.

  • ๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ทFrance nod_ Lille
  • Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.

Production build 0.69.0 2024