Hi,
First off, thanks for the great module.
I am trying to use it as part of the book module: i.e. use composite layouts on a book page by referencing other page nodes. Note that the nodes that I am referencing are not book nodes, but normal page nodes.
I have attached three images.
The first image shows what happens when the node of the book page is included as Node:Body in composite header. Note that the bottom navigation links that the book module usually creates (i.e. previous and next page links) are missing.
The second image shows what happens when the node of the book page is instead included as "Node content should be included as an item available for composite layout." (i.e. Node: Original content in composite header). Note how the Book navigation is included, but it appears above the composite layout.
While writing out this bug, I figured out a way to get around this, and thats to include the Node Original Content in the footer of the composite layout. This is shown in the third image. Although this works, its counter-intuitive and a bit of a hack to get the required output.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | node_body.png | 10.91 KB | JonoB |
| #1 | node_original_content.png | 13.21 KB | JonoB |
| #1 | node_original_content_in_footer.png | 18.13 KB | JonoB |
Comments
Comment #1
JonoB commentedFor some reason my images didnt get uploaded; here we go.
Comment #2
bengtan commentedHi,
It's a bit of a clash between the Book module and Composite Layout. The Book module injects its navigational elements into the node's 'content blob'. Composite Layout doesn't know about Book module, but if Composite Layout displays a node's 'content blob', then the navigational Book elements (if any), are also included.
So, it's a bit of a subjective judgement whether there is a bug here, or accept the behaviour as an incompatibility.
A solution would be to amend Composite Layout to know about Book navigational elements, and hence, be able to lay them out into a Zone. That would provide greatest flexibility. However, I'm presently undecided on whether that's something that should be done or not.
Any thoughts?
Comment #3
bengtan commentedExpiring this issue as it is old and uncertain whether it is still applicable.