Added a core issue #3552744: Dispatch an event in twig_render_template →
@Pex Whatcha think? Does the use_twig_events flag suffice for now?
Also, before I forget. The plan to address this was 2 step approach.
1. Let's stop using twig_events_engine_render_template by adding a patch to core that dispatches an event in twig_render_template so we no longer need twig_events and avoid this problem space. We shouldn't require users to apply a core patch if we can avoid it though so in the meantime we can use a second approach.
2. Users when they use hook_theme can flag that this template should in fact use twig_events_engine_render_template and Navigation+ can ensure that it does.
function custom_module_theme($existing, $type, $theme, $path) {
return [
'block__inline_block__recipe' => [
'base hook' => 'block',
'path' => $path . '/templates',
'use_twig_events' => TRUE,
],
];
}Thanks Pex! I'm eager to see if this works!
I think that we can use `hook_entity_view_alter` instead of this event to wrap the entities.
I tried this approach at length when building it, but found that wrapping fields in the render function was the only way to wrap some types of templates.
I have a feeling this one has been fixed. Feel free to reopen if not
Thank you smustgrave
I added a test and it looks like they are all passing.
Added testing instructions.
Ah I am very sorry about that. I did have a D11 version going for a while, but I don't have a D11 site going and I know there is at least one issue 📌 Make compatible with core Navigation module D11.2.0 Active I need to address for it to work on 11.2, so I felt like I should temporarily remove the D11 release until I can dog food it and ensure it is actually working.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
I used AI to extract the twig template editing feature from Component Library to a sub module, cl_override_mode. While this is a great start, it still needs some work.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → made their first commit to this issue’s fork.
tim bozeman → made their first commit to this issue’s fork.
Very nice! Thank you!
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
Oh dear...
The branch seems pretty good to me, but the bot doesn't like it. I probably should not have rebased against the current 11.x? I'm not sure what to do about that. 😬
Here's testing that the editor:attached event is firing.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
Interesting. Thanks for researching that! Here's an example of how the trash module transitioned to 11.2.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
Being an early adopter of the navigation module sure has been painful. A lot of the new work on the navigation module is only being applied to D11. I am really enjoying not having to use the edit and layout tab though! The plus suite recipe → has just been updated with the new layout builder tools if you want to give it a try.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
I added a new release for D11 → . This is the long awaited (by me) step where we finally transition the layout builder actions to Edit mode tools. I guess in hindsight, the 3.x branch should have really been an Alpha release as it was a temporary state from the layout tab to tools.
Are you okay with me unlisting 3.1.x and 3.2.x from the project page now? Sorry if that's a rug pull, but those alpha branches are really the only viable releases and I don't want to mislead anyone else by marking it stable again (even though it is pretty stable 🤔).
Hmm... Yeah, thank you. I will reopen this issue then 😅 🐛 The configuration 'field.storage.node.layout_builder__layout' exists already and does not match the recipe's configuration Active
Oh that’s good to know! I have a feeling I’m going to run into that one day.
I’m sorry about that solideogloria! You’re right. I put them back on the project page.
tim bozeman → created an issue.
tim bozeman → created an issue.