I've added a vocabulary which is filled by an autocomplete field in a node.

To my unpleasant surprise its field is not even visible in the pattern configuration page of the url aliases (admin/config/search/path/patterns). The field for the standard pattern is there and so is the default pattern called "Tags". But my own created vocabulary isn't.

Furthermore, when I edit a term of my own vocabulary, and I check "automatic alias", it doesn't comply. The url remains "taxonomy/term/59". But I leave the automatic url checked out, and fill something in myself, "test" for instance, it will remain that url ("/test"). Forever. Checking "automatic url" or not. It remains "test" from now on.

Is this a bug in the latest recommended version of Pathauto? Or is this common for term reference field in a node that uses autocomplete?

Comments

Created a test vocabulary, started the same procedure as the problematic one as described above, and here there are no problems.

What could have gone wrong? I can't think of anything...

While making a content type the first time I inserted two "reference to a term"-fields, both autocomplete and both refering to the same vocabulary. Could that have been the problem?

Sounds ridiculous maybe, but like I said: I have no idea at all.

I've created both the fields separately now, both still using the same vocabulary, and it seems to work now. Don't have a clue what went wrong - quite concerning.

Title:Use of multiple term reference fields using the same vocabulary within one content type causes issuesAutomatic taxonomy urls not working

Update: one of the two fields is not being displayed, which may be pointing to an issue with two term reference fields using the same vocabulary within one content type (and autocomplete maybe).

I have no other explanation for it.

Can't tell whether this issue concerns another module now...

Title:Automatic taxonomy urls not workingUse of multiple term reference fields using the same vocabulary within one content type causes issues

Forget post #3 and #4, forget to fill that field out in a node I was testing - it's getting too late for me :)