Support for Drupal 7 is ending on 5 January 2025—it’s time to migrate to Drupal 10! Learn about the many benefits of Drupal 10 and find migration tools in our resource center.
AFAIK,
Title, Body, Tags are Fields.
"Term reference, Image, File, String .." are Field Types.
Field UI describe its column as "Field" column is confusing users..
Comment | File | Size | Author |
---|---|---|---|
#15 | field_type.patch | 926 bytes | droplet |
#9 | reroll-2.patch | 966 bytes | droplet |
#2 | field_ui.patch | 950 bytes | droplet |
field_ui.patch | 508 bytes | droplet | |
field_ui.jpg | 95.95 KB | droplet |
Comments
Comment #2
droplet CreditAttribution: droplet commentedComment #3
yched CreditAttribution: yched commentedWorks for me, but this is probably for the UX folks to RTBC.
Comment #4
Bojhan CreditAttribution: Bojhan commentedSounds fine to me, I will wait for another few reviews before marking this RTBC.
Comment #5
webchickSeems reasonable, but then should we not rename the Widget column to Widget type as well?
Comment #6
Bojhan CreditAttribution: Bojhan commentedI am not sure, for consistency yes - for clarity I don't think its needed. I am fine, either way.
Comment #7
yched CreditAttribution: yched commented@webchick: "should we not rename the Widget column to Widget type as well"
Strictly speaking, yes, but as @Bojhan said, I don't think this is needed nor really desirable.
The distinction between "field" and "field type" is crucial, but much less between "widget" and "widget type". That's because you don't really "create a widget of a given type" per se, you create a field and specify which widget [type] it uses, there is no such thing as standalone widgets, that would be important to differentiate from other standalone widgets of the same type.
Comment #8
jenlamptonUpdating tags
Comment #9
droplet CreditAttribution: droplet commentedComment #10
dixon_One thing that we discussed during the entity representation format sprint was the introduction of #1346214: [meta] Unified Entity Field API. Everything (what we currently call fields and properties) would essentially be moved into one API - the Property API. So everything would be a property. I know that the term field has a long background in CCK and now in D7 as well. But technically speaking, property is a much more common word for what we are trying to describe here, IMO.
But maybe more importantly, since VDC is moving forward now, we have to avoid name collision and confusion between Field API's fields and Views' fields. They are not the same thing.
So maybe we should think about renaming Field API's fields to properties (which would go inline with #1346214: [meta] Unified Entity Field API) and let Views own the term fields.
Sorry to hijack the issue like this. Just wanted to highlight other discussions that is going on in parallell.
Comment #11
webchickNo, let's please not do that. To an end user, these are form "fields". they are not form "properties".
Comment #12
Bojhan CreditAttribution: Bojhan commentedOk this is good to go.
@dixon Sounds like a pretty bad idea.
Comment #13
catchCommitted/pushed to 8.x, thanks!
Comment #14
David_Rothstein CreditAttribution: David_Rothstein commentedThis issue is tagged "needs backport to D7" and seems like it's reasonably safe to backport.
Especially since we're lucky and
t('Field type')
already appears in the codebase, so we aren't actually even adding a new string.Comment #15
droplet CreditAttribution: droplet commentedComment #16
webchickNIce! The only reason not to do this in D7 is it would invalidate tutorial instructions (e.g. books, blog posts, documentation pages). But I think I would support it despite authoring one of said books. ;) This is pretty "duh."
Setting to RTBC since this is a straight-forward port. Will leave it a couple of days, unless David commits it first.
Comment #17
webchickOk, didn't see any objections, so committed and pushed to 7.x. Thanks!
Comment #18
David_Rothstein CreditAttribution: David_Rothstein commentedThanks, sorry I didn't get to this one myself.
It occurs to me that since this is a UI change, it would probably be worth mentioning in the release notes.... and I went ahead and added it to CHANGELOG.txt also: http://drupalcode.org/project/drupal.git/commit/49e806f
Comment #19.0
(not verified) CreditAttribution: commentedtypo