- Issue created by @mglaman
- 🇧🇪Belgium wim leers Ghent 🇧🇪🇪🇺
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.
- 🇧🇪Belgium wim leers Ghent 🇧🇪🇪🇺
Quickly hacked together an initial MR, seems to at least kinda work? Now just needs JS updates to finish booting :)
- 🇧🇪Belgium wim leers Ghent 🇧🇪🇪🇺
Oh and this of course would still show the navigation bar with the UI:
- 🇪🇸Spain penyaskito Seville 💃, Spain 🇪🇸, UTC+2 🇪🇺
Created 📌 Add permission for "Use Experience Builder" Active , and postponed on this
- 🇧🇪Belgium wim leers Ghent 🇧🇪🇪🇺
Just discussed this with @effulgentsia and @penyaskito. We agreed that
create
access for thexb_page
content entity type would be a reasonable first step until 📌 Allow XB to be used on all node types Active happens. - 🇧🇪Belgium wim leers Ghent 🇧🇪🇪🇺
This blocks:
- 🇫🇮Finland lauriii Finland
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.
- 🇧🇪Belgium wim leers Ghent 🇧🇪🇪🇺
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
intests/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).
- First commit to issue fork.
- 🇬🇧United Kingdom thoward216
I've updated some tests that were failing, updated the access check to account for the new route and added to the test.
- 🇺🇸United States effulgentsia
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.