Allow working with a new (unsaved) entity

Or … better yet: what if we allow navigating to /xb without any entity, which then would load the XB UI without any request to /xb/api/v0/layout/{entity_type}/{entity}.

I'll get a draft MR going with the server-side bits.

Quickly hacked together an initial MR, seems to at least kinda work? Now just needs JS updates to finish booting :)

Oh and this of course would still show the navigation bar with the UI:

Created 📌 Add permission for "Use Experience Builder" Active , and postponed on this

Just discussed this with @effulgentsia and @penyaskito. We agreed that create access for the xb_page content entity type would be a reasonable first step until 📌 Allow XB to be used on all node types Active happens.

This blocks:

• ✨ Move entity type and ID from base path and into routing parameters Active
• 📌 Add generic create entity support Active

I don't think this needs to block the beta. It would be very nice to have though for the beta since this would make testing XB outside of Drupal CMS / other pre-defined setup much easier.

Rebased the sole commit on top of 1.x. Adopted the access check 📌 [PP-1] Update `experience_builder.(experience_builder|api.layout.get) routes` to respect content entity update/field edit access of edited XB field Active added (yay!)

From a back-end POV, this mostly just needs tests — see the @todo in tests/src/Kernel/Controller/ExperienceBuilderControllerTest.php.

Per #4 — we could land this as-is IMHO, and then just let the front-end folks make the necessary changes in a subsequent MR to not fetch the edited entity's component tree (because there's no entity in this context).

I've updated some tests that were failing, updated the access check to account for the new route and added to the test.

Now that we're effectively in beta, changing route names requires a BC layer

I haven't reviewed the MR to have an opinion on whether or not we should change the route names. But if it seems like the new names are better, then we can do so without providing a BC layer. For XB, beta only means data stability, not API stability.

#14++ — route names are not an API, and likely never will be in XB.

Closed #3539685 in favor of this, reasoning: #3539685-3: Document that you need to programmatically create an `xb_page` in order to use experience builder → .

Moving to needs review to get some eyes on the one bit of feedback that I've attempted to implement and comment added on the MR, may need further work. All other feedback should be addressed.

Very close!

I don't think we need an e2e test for this; we've got a functional test in tests/src/Kernel/Controller/ExperienceBuilderControllerTest.php, which combined with any development we all do would quickly reveal if this ever gets broken 🤓

Paired with @thoward216. Turns out that Page's

"add-form" => "/xb/xb_page",

is a long-lost ambition: it doesn't work at all: the JS UI crashes right away (just like in #4).

It's also obsolete now, thanks to the experience_builder.api.content.create route being called first.

We may choose to restore this in the future, but for now, being able to start using XB without any entity (/xb working rather than only /xb/node/5 or /xb/page/4) is more important. Which is why I rescoped it as such in #2 (original title was: ).

For now, just removing that altogether, including the test coverage at \Drupal\Tests\experience_builder\Kernel\Entity\Routing\XbHtmlRouteProviderTest::testAddFormRoute(), seems more sensible — because it's testing that HTML is served that results in a crashing JS application. 😅

That's in! Thanks, @thoward216! 😊

This unblocked ✨ Move entity type and ID from base path and into routing parameters Active .

The work that still remains is updating the UI (it currently just "loads" XB forever as demonstrated in #4), so changing the issue queue component.

However … we might also just want to close this and let ✨ Move entity type and ID from base path and into routing parameters Active take care of that. 🤔 Doubly so because that issue literally states

I defer to @jessebaker :)

Oh I see that ✨ Move entity type and ID from base path and into routing parameters Active is already planned to be worked on this sprint!

@hooroomoo in chat confirmed:

Yes I agree it makes sense to just close that issue and have #3502887 address the frontend part. I think Jesse is gonna pick it up when he's back from PTO

🥳

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