- Issue created by @gillesv
- 🇧🇪Belgium gillesv Belgium
Some extra info: I enabled domain access for taxonomy terms through the module "Domain Access Entity" (domain_entity).
The domain data is saved in a field named "domain_access" (not "field_domain_access").
Suggested some changes in the issue fork to make the module: A) also check field "domain_access" and B) work for taxonomy terms by also checking for taxonomy terms in the "domain_unique_path_alias_entity_presave" hook.
- 🇧🇪Belgium RandalV
I think this issue is definitely an important one, but the scope still seems too small.
I wonder why it should be limited to nodes and taxonomy terms at all, all content entities should be valid here.I'll see if I can cough up a solution for that.
- Merge request !16Only works for nodes, other entity types aren't supported. → (Closed) created by RandalV
- 🇧🇪Belgium RandalV
I had to open a new branch because the existing one (1.x) created issues for me locally, due to it having the same name as the main module's git branch.
This attempts to make the functionality as 'global' as possible, by retrieving most stuff dynamically.
Please take a look and feel free to test it.There is an edge case where this could "not work", which is when the route parameter in `entity.[entity_type].canonical` is not the same as the entity type machine name... But I can't think of a single instance where that would be the case.
- 🇧🇪Belgium RandalV
Hoo wee.. Something seems very wrong with this merge request, it targets the initial fork branch rather than the module's branch 🤦🏻♂️
- 🇧🇪Belgium RandalV
Welp.. Sadly I have no idea how to fix that mess.
Instead, here's the patch as a file.
- 🇧🇪Belgium RandalV
A small fix applied to new entities being saved, they shouldn't be processed in that presave hook.