Needs work
Project:
Field collection
Version:
7.x-1.x-dev
Component:
User interface
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Feature request
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
16 Sep 2011 at 08:39 UTC
Updated:
15 Nov 2016 at 15:38 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent, Most recent file
Comments
Comment #1
jamsilver commentedpatch attached.
Comment #3
joelstein commentedI like this idea. What about moving the "Add" links in with "Edit" and "Delete"?
Comment #4
bryancasler commentedI would love to make this switch, but the patch doesn't work with the current dev.
Comment #5
WebJohn commentedI agree, removing the 'Edit', 'Delete' and 'Add' links and moving them into a contextual link (or just removing them altogether) would make for a more consistent user experience.
Edit: I posted this before realising that these links can in fact be removed by editing the 'Manage display' of the containing node. Perhaps this option should be off by default?
Comment #6
bryancasler commented@jamsilver Any chance on getting your patch pushed against the current dev?
Comment #7
tim.plunkettThere are lots of problems with these links, another example is #1246778: Make Add/Edit/Delete links translatable.
However, people might be using them. I'm not 100% comfortable ripping them out like that.
Also, the patch seems like it needs a reroll.
Comment #8
Fidelix commented@tim.plunkett, I understand that there are people using them.
Putting this on DEV and commenting about it on the next stable release could help.
I am sure that these contextual links would be better from an UX point of view, though.
But there is the case of the people that don't have contextual.module enabled.
Providing one or another depending on this case would not be a good option, I think.
In the end, I think the adaptation effort would be a necessary evil.
Comment #9
tim.plunkettAssigning to fago for his opinion.
Comment #10
mrfelton commentedThis should be optional - it's not only content editors that use these links. We present these links to end users in several cases, and the people that will be using these links (joe public) certainly won't be looking for contextual links. Contextual links are more of a backend thing, where as there is nothing restricting the ability to create/edit/delete field_collection items to backend use cases.
Comment #11
james.williamsWhile not strictly related, the following patch adds an 'Add another' menu item at the same level as the edit & delete field collection item paths - which is intended for use in contextual links, as it allows users to add additional items from where they are when viewing a host entity. (The normal add path would not be shown in the contextual link for a specific field collection item.)
Comment #12
james.williamsNote: the above patch shows the 'add another' contextual link without checking access -- oops, this was just found on a client's UAT site! I'll work on a fix in the next few days and post a better patch.
Comment #13
james.williamsThis patch replaces my patch above in comment 11. Again, note that this doesn't fix the original issue, but provides a new path that can be used in contextual links.
Comment #14
jmuzz commentedI see no reason contextual links shouldn't be available for field collection items. They seem to be all over the place on everything else when they are active. They can be hidden from some users via their permission. The links built into field collection can be hidden by using a different formatter.
It would be fine to make a patch that adds the contextual links even if the built in links are there too. If there are use cases this doesn't cover (somebody needs to use contextual links for something else but shouldn't have access to them for field collections even though they do need to edit field collections) it can be done in a followup.