Account created on 3 June 2008, about 17 years ago
#

Recent comments

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

If you're going to add this as a config option for the module without advanced notice (like announcing and waiting a release cycle), I agree it will be least disruptive for existing users to have the default setting match current behavior.

If you notify users between releases that the change is coming in an upcoming release, ensuring it's visible on the module description page, then changing the default behavior from what it is now should reduce the risk that any users are caught off guard by the change and then it becomes the standard behavior.

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

changing title

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

Changing approval settings.

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

Changing parent item

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

This should have been a guide page.

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

Changing status because currently I'm unable to add a sub page guide.

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

I've started the process of stubbing out module docs here. We'll need a maintainer to link them to the module once they have been reviewed and approved:

https://www.drupal.org/docs/extending-drupal/contributed-modules/contrib... β†’

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

Looks good @pfrilling

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

r.aubin β†’ created an issue.

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

I agree with the proposed categories in #4, but we might consider "Automation" given it's in the name of the module and once configured will perform an action without further input.

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

I agree with @bhogue's suggestions in #4

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

I agree with SEO and Administration tools. It looks like "Site Structure" is struck out currently, but I think keeping that as the 3rd category (or maybe even ranked 2nd) makes sense. It's an extension of your content model, defining how it gets exposed to end users by URL.

1. SEO
2. Site Structure
3. Administration tools

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

@zetagraph - I added one comment on your MR if you can take a look when you have a moment

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

@rkoller, was the intent of this issue to reduce the allowable character length of this input or the visible width of the input field?

Adjusting the width of the input based on viewport size so it doesn't end up really wide would be nice, but is a separate thing from the allowable input character length. Also, the WCAG section you referenced pertains to blocks of text, not form inputs, so I don't think that should apply here and the input's maxLength shouldn't be different for users with different viewport sizes.

The open MR that @Tabestan put together addresses just the maxLength not the input's physical size.

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

Added to dev

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈUnited States r.aubin

@pfrilling looks good and tested. Definitely helps make it clear to site builder what fields are affected on the display forms. Thank you!

Production build 0.71.5 2024