philiph91 → created an issue.
philiph91 → created an issue.
philiph91 → created an issue.
I'm changing this to feature request, so if someone agrees that displaying filters in a report makes sense, he can pick up from here.
Hi,
Thanks for the help, but I'm not going to be able to program this.
I've spent some more time on it, without success, but I've found another workaround.
If the user selects the entire view from the title to the bottom, and selects to print only the active selection in his browsers print dialog, he can print what he needs with the filters included.
This doesn't seem like it is such a strange question: it could make sense as a setting, but that is not something I can work on.
philiph91 → created an issue.
The question is indeed not if Drupal is in decline, but if websites are in decline in general. Wordpress is also in decline, and has also been in decline for years.
Websites aren't very interesting any more. Everybody now has a website, there's nothing exciting about that any more. Setting up a website that has extremely extended functionality is easy: just install drupal.
But we also have a social media account/page/whatever, a Google maps entry, a mailing list, etc..
So we have to put time and effort in those other online presences as well. Keeping everything up to date on a website takes time. When we want to renew the website, what is important: do we want all those features, maintenance, bugs, headaches? Or do we simply want a simple one page website with nice pictures not to much text and some links to social media, an online shop (magento,...) maybe, etc. In that case we don't need the extremely extended features any more. Or maybe we don't even need a website any more.
Hi,
I've tested the proposed solution and we have no more errors.
FYI: this is really annoying, Drupal shows these warnings to ALL users :-/
Thanks for the patch!
@ivnish can you give feedback on the proposed patch?
Hi Sandeep,
No, sorry, I'm not much of a module developer. I had tried the approach suggested by Andrei; relying on the article.
I can't comment on the patch
Ok, thanks for the help!
philiph91 → created an issue.
philiph91 → created an issue.
Hi,
Regarding usability we can now put anything in the entity reference, and thanks to the id, Drupal can easily link the entity that we wanted.
Without id, the current implementation falls back to matching which may prove to be problem. So it looks preferable to me to keep the id, but make it invisible.
Changed priority according to guidelines:
"Major bugs include those that:
... Cause user input to be lost, but do not delete or corrupt existing data."
Because changes to the exposed id at the end of the autocomplete cause another entity to be referenced, without possibility to recover the original input that the user did while looking up the entity.
This is better suited than "fixed" :-)
Thanks for the quick response and having solved the problem, I'm afraid I didn't see notifications, so my apologies for my tardy response.
Changed category from 'plan' to bug report, because it's not only a UX problem
Hi,
I'm here because this is not only an interface problem: we have users that have managed to change the node ID and Drupal does not throw an error.
1 We have a field that uses an entity reference with autocomplete (because there are more than 1000 entities to choose from). Hence, Drupal accepts any entity in this field.
2 In the entity reference view, there is a filter on node type being a specific type.
3 the user searches for a node, finds out, and the field is filled with: "node title (1234)"
4 our user changes the ID, now we have: "node title (123)"
5 Drupal saves the node ID from the autocomplete field without checks or error. The field references "some other nodes title" with id 123.
This is really annoying, and impossible to clean up: what node was meant to be referenced?
It doesn't make sense to display an ID: users don't know or think in IDs. Entities with duplicate titles don't justify this behaviour: they should not have duplicate titles. I'm very glad this is an active topic, and I hope that it gets fixed. This should have been fixed a long time ago, because nothing is worse than users being able to give invalidated input. Please add this problem to the motivation.