Early Bird Registration for DrupalCon Portland 2024 is open! Register by 23:59 PST on 31 March 2024, to get $100 off your ticket.
The "BEF Test Content" feature has the "body" field field_base. This creates a conflict with our feature which also has the body field_base.
Comment | File | Size | Author |
---|---|---|---|
#19 | better_exposed_filters-2199933-19.patch | 3.39 KB | EmanueleQuinto |
Comments
Comment #1
broeker CreditAttribution: broeker commentedWe have this same issue, and posted about it in the Features queue so far with no response:
https://drupal.org/node/2193391
We also now have an "Events" feature, and found the same BEF conflict with "field_date". If you read through the various related issues in the Features queue, it seems like there really is no good solution for this with the new method of declaring field_base and field_instance. It is unfortunate that a disabled "test" feature would cause conflicts with unrelated enabled Features.
This particular conflict could be solved if the BEF Test Content used some custom field names such as "field_bef_body" and "field_bef_date" . . . but the larger issue doesn't seem like it will be solved anytime soon.
Comment #2
mikeker CreditAttribution: mikeker commentedWow... So even disabled features can conflict with existing
field_base
definitions? Can you confirm that is the case before I go renaming all the fields in BEF Test Content?Thanks.
Comment #3
rrrob CreditAttribution: rrrob commentedI can confirm. I did not have it enabled, and it did indeed conflict with other features with the same base fields.
Comment #4
mikeker CreditAttribution: mikeker commentedI just realized that I left out the
hidden = TRUE
in the BEF Test Content info file. (Commit: #475b11a)Can you pull the latest -dev release and let me know if that fixes this issue?
Thanks.
Comment #5
idebr CreditAttribution: idebr commentedI tested my feature with the -dev version of better_exposed_filters. The feature is hidden in Features overview, but my features still reports a conflict 'Conflicts with: bef_test_content (Disabled) in field_base [body]'
Comment #6
Christopher Riley CreditAttribution: Christopher Riley commentedI am also seeing the conflict with the latest dev.
Comment #7
joelpittet@mikeker Same as #5 and #6 still shows up even when hidden.
Comment #8
quimicSame here. Conflict in features.
Comment #9
mikeker CreditAttribution: mikeker commentedApologies for not updating this issue when it happened (9 Oct), but all the field definitions in the BEF Test Content feature have been renamed to include a bef_ prefix.
@quimic: make sure you're looking at the latest -dev or the recently minted 3.0 release. Thanks.
Comment #10
idebr CreditAttribution: idebr commented@mikeker Could reference the issue number in the commit message when adding code to the repository, so the link is added on the issue page?
Relevant commit:
Comment #11
quimic@mikeker
Indeed, v3.0 no longer creates any conflict in features. Thanks!
Comment #13
joep.hendrix CreditAttribution: joep.hendrix commentedI think this slipped back in again. In the info file there is still a features[field_base][] = body line.
Thanks for this fine module!
Comment #14
mikeker CreditAttribution: mikeker commentedGrrr... Sometimes I hate Features...
Comment #16
joep.hendrix CreditAttribution: joep.hendrix commentedTelle me about it..
Thanks for the quick follow up!
Comment #18
steveoriolI confirm, if you delete the ligne "features[field_base][] = body" inside the info file "better_exposed_filters/tests/bef_test_content/bef_test_content.info", there is no more "feature conflicts".
Comment #19
EmanueleQuinto CreditAttribution: EmanueleQuinto commentedSorry to reopen but it turned out there is a conflict in taxonomy as
location
vocabulary is not prefixed.Please find attached the patch.
Comment #21
mikeker CreditAttribution: mikeker as a volunteer commentedGood catch and thanks for the patch, @EmanueleQuinto.
Removed trailing whitespace on commit.