In #1497374: Switch from Field-based storage to Entity-based storage there are not yet explicit tests for a field with data shared between two different entity types. That's one of the trickier bits of the patch so we should really have explicit coverage. Given that patch is 580kb and blocks several others, and it's been manually tested for this case, I'm going to commit it without those tests, but adding them should block both release and a beta so we don't get nasty surprises later.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #7 | field_upgrade_test-2078507-7.patch | 12.23 KB | yched |
| #7 | interdiff.txt | 1.83 KB | yched |
| #5 | field_upgrade_test-2078507-5.patch | 12.31 KB | yched |
| #5 | interdiff.txt | 2.12 KB | yched |
| #3 | field_upgrade_test-2078507-3.patch | 11.06 KB | yched |
Comments
Comment #1
jibranTagging.
Comment #2
catchComment #3
yched commentedPatch - didn't test locally, let's see if I got everything right.
Comment #5
yched commented- Silly mistakes in the test d7 dump data (the shared field was marked 'deleted').
- There was indeed a problem with the upgrade path... A shared field got split in separate fields per entity types, but instances didn't point back to the correct field.
Comment #7
yched commentedI changed the way we test field values, and it doesn't work (text values come up with the extra 'safe_*' property currently).
Reverted to the previous way.
Comment #8
swentel commentedMarvelous, RTBC when green.
Comment #9
dries commentedCommitted to 8.x. Thanks.