Come together with the global Drupal community in Rotterdam, 28 Sept – 1 Oct 2026. Sessions, contribution, connection, and Early Bird savings until 8 June.(Maybe this should be handled with Relation Dummy Field, but maybe not. This is what I'm thinking (see related issues below)):
Relation dummy field so far has been the one to define the base 'relation' field type. But it is not fair to require this module in order for other modules to implement field widgets for 'relation' types. To deal with the problem, Relation Select and Relation Autocomplete, for example, have to hi-jack the relation field type in order for their widgets to work.
It should be the responsibility of a generic module to define this base field type. I propose 'relation_field' module, which does no more than take responsibility for this type, as a sub-module of relation (api). This way, any field widget module simply relies on relation_field module, and goes about its business.
If someone want to provide a patch to Relation, it'd be greatly appreciated. Otherwise I will get to it when I can. If you want to take this on, please assign this task to yourself and leave a comment you are working on it.
Thank you.
Related issues:
#1753844: relation select field type collision with relation dummy field
#1816830: Switching widget type does not remove field instance settings.
#1816914: Module uses field settings inappropriately
Comments
Comment #1
steveoliver commentedRelation Dummy Field now (45ad68d) uses
relation_dummyfield type instead ofrelation. Run update.php (relation_update_7003).Comment #2
steveoliver commentedwoops, forgot a few lines. Done now.
Comment #3
steveoliver commentedComment #4
mikran commentedPlease post patches first to give testbot a chance. And another question, how does this affect previous implementations that utilize exported relation fields? How about configuration / features?
I'll try with some projects that use configuration and exported stuff next week.
Comment #5
steveoliver commentedYou're right, I didn't think about exported fields and config. I will definitely post patches for testbot. Think I should revert the change?
Comment #6
mikran commentedhttp://qa.drupal.org/pifr/test/160244 tests are red atm so yes, I think it would be good to revert the change
Comment #7
steveoliver commentedReverted last two commits in 5c3e6c4. I'll just leave this field type to the dummy field module for now :)
Comment #8
mikran commentedRe-opening. At least the string changes can be done without breaking existing configurations.