- Issue created by @daneduijnkerke
- Status changed to Needs review
almost 2 years ago 1:21pm 27 October 2023 - last update
almost 2 years ago 25 pass, 7 fail The last submitted patch, 2: 3397218_2.patch, failed testing. View results โ
- Status changed to Needs work
over 1 year ago 9:13am 27 May 2024 - ๐ณ๐ฑNetherlands willempje2
Your if statement seems to be inverted.
Seems more sensible to skip if cloneable entities are empty or if target entity is not present in the array. - First commit to issue fork.
- Merge request !80Fix clone form is not respecting 'cloneable_entities' config. โ (Open) created by rajeshreeputra
- ๐ฎ๐ณIndia rajeshreeputra Pune
Let's wait for pipeline to run, once green will merge and release.
- Status changed to Needs review
about 1 year ago 12:35pm 17 July 2024 - ๐ณ๐ฑNetherlands willempje2
In its current form this will return false if the target_type is in the cloneable_entities config. This is the opposite of what you would want in a isClonable function.
- ๐ง๐ชBelgium Kobe Wright
Kobe Wright โ made their first commit to this issueโs fork.
- ๐ง๐ชBelgium Kobe Wright
I believe Willempje2 is right, updated the MR to correct the condition in the isClonable() function.
Also attaching a patch here. - ๐จ๐ฆCanada hargurpreet Kitchener
I've tried patch #12, but the clone link still appears under /admin/content and when editing a node or content type. So, I've updated the patch to hide the clone link for entities disabled in the cloneable_entities config. Thanks!
- First commit to issue fork.
- ๐ธ๐ฎSlovenia deaom
Issue ๐ฌ Add action module as dev dependency. Active needs to be merged for failing action tests. Applied the changes from #13 patch so it's all in a MR. Leaving status to needs review.
- ๐ฎ๐ณIndia rajeshreeputra Pune
@deaom started merge train for ๐ฌ Add action module as dev dependency. Active .
- ๐ธ๐ฎSlovenia deaom
Test are now passing, but this really needs to be checked and tested. The issue with tests not passing was with the referenced entities specifically in this test case paragraphs, as even if they were marked as not allowed to clone, they were getting cloned. With the code changes, they are no longer getting cloned, but rather referenced as it was before (or still is in the 2.x without this change). I'm not sure the logic is correct and if it breaks anything as I'm not sure tests are covering everything, so it would be good to test manually and also check the solution is suitable.
- ๐ฎ๐ณIndia rajeshreeputra Pune
Can we add test coverage this to make sure this is working.