I have a nodetype containing both a multi-valued filefield and a multi-valued emvideo field.
And I have a media-mover configuration that:
(a) harvests all the files in the multi-valued filefield
(b) uploads the files to youtube
(c) saves the youtube videos in the emvideo field.

Steps (a) and (b) work fine. But I am having a problem with the save-step (c).
All the youtube videos are getting stuffed into the first emvideo field, overwriting what was there before.

I would instead like to append the processed videos to the end of the multi-valued emvideo field. Is this possible?

CommentFileSizeAuthor
#5 mm_emfield.diff491 byteskobnim
#1 mm_emfield.patch741 bytesarthurf

Comments

arthurf’s picture

arthurf commented
Category: feature » bug
StatusFileSize
new mm_emfield.patch741 bytes

I think what you are identifying is actually a bug rather than a feature. Looking at mm_emfield, the field position is hard coded on line 354. The code in mm_cck is quite a bit different:


  // Add the file on to the node
  // Do any files already exist on this node?
  if (! is_array($node->{$field['field_name']})) {
    $node->{$field['field_name']} = array($new_file);
  }
  elseif (! isset($node->{$field['field_name']}[0]))  {
    $node->{$field['field_name']} = array($new_file);
  }
  // Files exist, append this file
  else {
    $node->{$field['field_name']}[] = $new_file;
  }

Can you apply the attached patch to mm_emfield.module and see if that works for you?

kobnim’s picture

kobnim commented

The patch worked perfectly. Thank you!

arthurf’s picture

arthurf commented

Fix is committed, thanks for testing!

arthurf’s picture

arthurf commented
Status: Active » Closed (fixed)
kobnim’s picture

kobnim commented
Status: Closed (fixed) » Active
StatusFileSize
new mm_emfield.diff491 bytes

This patch never made it into media_mover_api-6.x-1.0-beta9.
I am attaching a patch for the beta9 version of mm_emfield.module

arthurf’s picture

arthurf commented
Version: 6.x-1.0-beta7 » 6.x-1.x-dev
Status: Active » Needs review

This is actually in the 6.x-1.x branch. It should be ready for testing.

kobnim’s picture

kobnim commented

I tested the patch and it works fine.
There have been a lot of fixes since the beta9 release of 6.x-1.0. If you could roll the changes of the past year into another official release, that would be really helpful.
Thanks very much for all your work on this great module!
MIndy