How difficult would it be to add content_taxonomy as a controlling field?

I'd be happy to help write this piece, but don't want to duplicate effort if you are already working / planning on it.

CommentFileSizeAuthor
#6 content_taxonomy.zip1.3 KBCero

Comments

smoothify’s picture

smoothify commented

Nothing planned at the moment, so if its something you are able to help with that would be great.

Since the module is still in early development, I can always add extra functionality to help the field implementation work well.

Let me know if you have any questions :)

mkennedy2d’s picture

mkennedy2d commented

I'll take a look at your code and start planning my approach, and get back to you if I have any questions.

Thanks!

rburgundy’s picture

rburgundy commented

+1 subscribing

Cero’s picture

Cero commented

Hi, did you succeeded in implementing dependent fields for content taxonomy type field? I would be very interested. Thanks in advance

mkennedy2d’s picture

mkennedy2d commented

I haven't gotten to it yet, and I solved my original issue with a different method. I hope to have some time (could be a while) to work on it once this module matures a bit.

Cero’s picture

Cero commented
Status: Active » Patch (to be ported)
StatusFileSize
new content_taxonomy.zip1.3 KB

Ok. We tried to do this implementation. We are still testing but it seems to work.
I attach it to this post. Obviously it must be put in dependent_fields/fields directory to work. If you still need it, try it.
Maybe can be useful to the mantainer of the module.

mkennedy2d’s picture

mkennedy2d commented

Awesome! I'll test it this afternoon. I ended up using a view because I needed additional filters, and I combined the two fields into one dropdown (but storing only one field).

I am still surprised this module didn't exist earlier, but maybe because everyone found alternative solutions?

smoothify’s picture

smoothify commented

@Cero

Thanks for your work on this, I will try to review this shortly and will look to add it into the module.

mkennedy2d’s picture

mkennedy2d commented

@Cero

The content taxonomy field works great. I used the ConTax field as the controller for a node reference field. Then setup the view (for the node reference) to receive the controller key as an argument. Thanks!

mkennedy2d’s picture

mkennedy2d commented

One item I just noticed: I'm using the Taxonomy [tid] as the views argument, but only 1 result is returned, even though multiple are available in the view.

smoothify’s picture

smoothify commented

I've committed the file from #6, to start off the Content Taxonomy implementation - Thanks Cero!

I still want to add autocomplete support to the field though.

@Shinzou - I haven't reproduced your issue with this yet - will look more into it.

smoothify’s picture

smoothify commented
Status: Patch (to be ported) » Active

I'm changing this to active as I want to add functionality to this implementation soon.

pcambra’s picture

pcambra
he/him
Primary language Spanish
commented
Issue summary: View changes
Status: Active » Closed (outdated)

Doing some cleanup as there's a new version for D8/9 and D6 is no longer alive