Drupal CMS does not need more than one Editor

I'm okay with removing basic_html and moving full_html into the base recipe. We can add core's restricted_html_format recipe to content_type_base, which will at least provide a fallback format for sites that aren't using the base recipe.

We have a bit of a problem here -- the seo_tools recipe needs the Full HTML format separately for its dashboard blocks.

That said, the use of static HTML in these blocks is a total kludge, and shouldn't be a thing anyway.

So I'm not sure what to do here...maybe we could adjust the recipe so that the blocks use the restricted_html format?

Could I switch to using core’s recipe?

Oh, that's a great idea! Yeah, let's do that.

Over to Jim for review.

The unrelated-seeming changes are not unrelated. SEO Tools had an implicit, inherited dependency on Media, that it was getting via the text formats it was depending on. Naughty, naughty. That's now sorted out, and tested.

Dashboard also was lacking a permission that made it impossible to test as a content editor, which is the best way for us to do functional testing. (The changes to ddev reinstall facilitate manual testing as a content editor.)

And I noticed that Restricted HTML had a lower weight than Full HTML, which resulted in it being chosen by default, even for users with permission to use Full HTML. That is now fixed and tested.

Great to catch a few potential bugs! Marking as RTBC

And, merged.

I don't think we need to consult @tim.plunkett or @pameeela on this one, because:

• As you pointed out in the issue summary, the presence of two formats is a holdover from the prototype, and was inspired by Standard, not the actual product requirements of Drupal CMS.
• It's hard to imagine that content editors will benefit from having to choose between "Basic HTML" and "Full HTML". The difference is not at all clear. So I'm guessing the product owner would approve of this simplification.

This change has left us in a weird state. We now have Full HTML and Restricted HTML, but restricted doesn't have an editor. There are a few default content items that reference restricted_html so these are kinda broken.

I understand the motivation here but we still have two editors, and now one is broken. So I'm not totally sure what happened. Was restricted already there? Why doesn't it have an editor?

OK wait, I think the problem is that the content type base is relying on core/recipes/restricted_html_format, but why? We are creating full_html in our base recipe. So if this needs to rely on something else, should we split that out as a separate recipe?

Core's restricted_html_format recipe only provides the format, IIRC. It doesn't provide an editor. I think it might well make sense for the base recipe to apply core's restricted_html_format, and also add an editor for that format.

I don't really see the logic for that. The point of this issue was not to have two editors. But then we'd be back to having two editors?

FWIW I don't think this is the last word on text formats, but I guess for now, I can just add some config for the restricted editor.

In my opinion Full HTML as that could be a potential security issue and we should add and configure an editor for the restricted HTML format. I'm a bit late to the party but I would have preferred to remove Full HTML and kept Basic HTML.

I'm okay with that. The goal of this issue was to remove the choice of two editors, but the preservation of Full HTML was an arbitrary choice. I've opened 📌 Replace the Full HTML format with Basic HTML Active as a follow-up.

Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.