- Issue created by @geek-merlin
- πΊπΈUnited States corE
You'll have to forgive me... I'm a little confused about whats happening.
My D10 update says I have Inline Entity Form (Unsupported) 2.0.0-rc10 installed and recommends version 2.0.0-rc10 (Release notes https://www.drupal.org/project/inline_entity_form/releases/2.0.0-rc10 β ). The version numbers are the same. I did the update as usual and nothing seemed to change, and the same recommended update information is still there. ??
Also, I did not see a 2x option listed on the projects page ( https://www.drupal.org/project/inline_entity_form β ), so I don't even know (or recall) how it came to be that I have this version installed. I recently migrated from D9 to D10 so I'm sure it was part of this processes somehow, and it may have been listed in D9 as reccomended. I did see the 2x versions listed on the 'View all releases' link https://www.drupal.org/project/inline_entity_form/releases β . And I read something about a 3x release??
The Project page (and link to issue) mentions cleaned up in π Clean up problematic 2.x branch Active . So it seems there is a cleanup in the works but there isn't enough 'plain speak' instruction (for laymen like me π) as to whats going on to make this clear.
I'm just wondering if I should:
- ignore this update (from 2.0.0-rc10 to 2.0.0-rc10) and if there is a 2.0.0-rc11 on the horizon,
- or if it will be a 3x version...
- or if I should roll back to 8.x-1.0-rc15, or even uninstall??
Please advise,
Thank you. - π©πͺGermany geek-merlin Freiburg, Germany
@corE You should go back to the 1.x branch.
- π¦πΊAustralia sime Melbourne
Are there any downgrade/data implications of rolling back? I suspect some people running platforms will want to double check this.
- πΊπΈUnited States Webbeh Georgia, USA
Logged an issue with GovCMS per #6: https://github.com/govCMS/GovCMS/issues/922
- π¦πΊAustralia pandaski
We, from GovCMS, noticed that the 2.x branch is no longer supported starting from yesterday.
Ideally, we would prefer a smooth transition from version 2.x to 3.x. We are willing to conduct tests and code reviews to make this transition as seamless as possible.
Another option is to revert to the 1.x branch, but we have concerns about potential data issues that may arise from downgrading at this time.
Our last option is to officially declare it as 'obsolete' in our distribution and patiently wait for version 3.x to be available.
- π¦πΉAustria inst
Hi,
I tried to go back from the 2.x to the 1.x branch by changing this simply in the composer.json
But it did not work. Nothing changes.How can I maange this downgrade!
Thanks for any help.
- πΊπΈUnited States Webbeh Georgia, USA
composer require drupal/inline_entity_form:^1
should do it. - π¦πΉAustria inst
Hi,
not sure what the problem was before. Now I am able to go back to 1.x
May be a update/cache/refresh.Anyhow - thanks for feedback!!
- π³πΏNew Zealand john pitcairn
Is it possible to mark the composer package for 2.x as unsupported? Anyone running composer
require drupal/inline_entity_form
is still going to get^2.0@RC
. - πΊπΈUnited States bsnodgrass
Working on preparations to upgrade to 10.2.x I noticed inline_entity_form 2.x was unsupported.
% lando composer why drupal/inline_entity_form drupal/recommended-project dev-main requires drupal/inline_entity_form (^2.0@RC)
Confirming, I was able to revert to use #8 to revert with no issues
composer require drupal/inline_entity_form:^1
Thanks for all your work.
- πΊπΈUnited States alison
We've been using 2.x releases for a while, so I'm inclined to just downgrade to 2.0.0-rc9, rather than to 1.x.
But, I see others saying it went fine for them to go to 1.x (thank you for that!), I just feel anxious about it. Still thinking, just, sharing my "thinking out loud."
- π«π·France dqd London | N.Y.C | Paris | Hamburg | Berlin
@geek-merlin: Not sure if this is the right spot to bring up issues which are possibly drawn by the branch confusion. But here my comment over there in β¨ Allow select widget for "Add existing items" Needs work if it helps:
Regarding π Clean up problematic 2.x branch Active we need to tackle issues possibly somewhat got under the mist of the latest branch confusions. And since this FR here has been hijacked for the now-closed 2.0 branch in the middle of its progress in 1.x, I do not know if it has ever landed in the 1.x branch. Let me link this issue to the clean up issue and let me set version back to 8.x-1.x-dev for a possible re-roll. Maintainers need to reopen if required.
- π¬π§United Kingdom lexsoft London
We have been utilizing the 2.x releases for quite some time, and our transition from 2.x to 1.x hinges on two critical features that the 2.x version provides:
1. β¨ Auto-open inline entity forms (especially for cardinality: 1) Needs work : being the main reason for the switch
2. β¨ Simple Widget - allow_new setting FixedFurthermore, it has come to our attention that if additional submit buttons are introduced for the node, it becomes necessary to reinstate the inline_entity_form triggers. Here's an example of how to achieve this:
if (\Drupal::moduleHandler()->moduleExists('inline_entity_form')) { array_unshift($form['actions']['save_edit']['#submit'], ['Drupal\inline_entity_form\ElementSubmit', 'trigger']); $form['actions']['save_edit']['#ief_submit_trigger'] = TRUE; $form['actions']['save_edit']['#ief_submit_trigger_all'] = TRUE; }
- πΊπΈUnited States bsnodgrass
Does it make sense to add a new issue to fix the Update Status report for this module? To change the recommended version to the version showing on the Project?
- π©πͺGermany geek-merlin Freiburg, Germany
OK, now i'm back at work here, coming from a lot of other urgent work.
As many say, the sanest way out of this is a 3.x release.
Moving on with this. - π©πͺGermany geek-merlin Freiburg, Germany
I marked 3.x recommended, and both 1.x and 2.x supported for now, to not spread FUD.
- π©πͺGermany geek-merlin Freiburg, Germany
Also updated project page text (suggestions for improvement always appreciated!):
Current version: 3.x
A problematic 2.x branch has been released erroneously, containing multiple regressions and unreviewed commits. This is currently cleaned up in π Clean up problematic 2.x branch Active . Help is appreciated.
If you are on 1.x, you can safely upgrade to 3.x.
If you are on 2.x, you can upgrade to 3.x, test well, and report back to π Clarify how to upgrade IEF 2.x => 3.x Active . - πΊπΈUnited States bsnodgrass
I attempted to upgrade to the 3.0.x recommended using
my attempt failedcomposer why drupal/inline_entity_form
reports
drupal/recommended-project dev-main requires drupal/inline_entity_form (^1.0@RC)
I am on core 10.2.0-rc1
- π©πͺGermany geek-merlin Freiburg, Germany
@bsnodgrass: Please open a separate issue with a detailed report what you typed and what you got.
(What you should have done: `composer require drupal/inline_entity_form:^3`) - π©πͺGermany geek-merlin Freiburg, Germany
Thanks for that issue!
Of course: People can only update to 3.x once ALL their projects that require IEF also allow 3.x. Sigh.
- π©πͺGermany geek-merlin Freiburg, Germany
Updated project page:
Supported versions: 1.x / 3.x
A problematic 2.x branch has been released erroneously, containing multiple regressions and unreviewed commits. This is currently cleaned up in π Clean up problematic 2.x branch Active . Help is appreciated.
If you are on 1.x, you can safely upgrade to 3.x, IF no other contrib module still requires 1.x only. In this case open an issue on that project, see π Other projects should require drupal/inline_entity_form ^1 || ^3 Active .
If you are on 2.x, you can either downgrade to 1.x, or upgrade to 3.x. Reporting back to π Clarify how to upgrade IEF 2.x => 3.x Active is appreciated. (Note that the you WILL lose all the non-quality-assured features from 2.x. To any complainers: Feel free to write tests for your favorite feature, or maintain a fork with lower maintenance standard yourself.)
Module authors, please update requirements
See π Other projects should require drupal/inline_entity_form ^1 || ^3 Active .
- π©πͺGermany geek-merlin Freiburg, Germany
I worked through each and every issue that was linked in a 2.x commit.
Indeed most of them have been committed despite explicit needs-tests tags, but no tests.
It's really a pity that this got such a code monster that it can only be handled with tests, that coding tests is not so popular as guessing some lines of php code, and that not much paid work is being pumped into this. But that's where we are.
- π©πͺGermany geek-merlin Freiburg, Germany
Did more archeology. There are some issues where the issue number is NOT in the commit message. So looking what closed issues are left with 2.x branch selected β , and processing them too. Some of them are obviously fixes for regressions and fatal errors from previous commits, leaving them alone.
- π¦πΊAustralia sime Melbourne
We noticed multiple issues when editing embedded entities using complex widget, these went away on 1.x branch. If you are on GovCMS PaaS but using the distribution you can do this for now but note that we are in pre-production so we have plenty of space to manage the risk of going back.
"drupal/inline_entity_form": "1.x-dev as 2.0.0-rc9",
- πΊπ¦Ukraine podarok Ukraine
I(and a large group of agencies) was actively working on this module as well as YMCA Website Services Community
All work will be moved to https://www.drupal.org/project/inline_entity_menu_form β in Q1 2024
Please, do not remove tags of 2.x branch just yet from current module in order to avoid breaking 500+ sites.Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience