New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[com_fields] Tags, custom fields and version control #15700

Open
pulsarinformatique opened this Issue Apr 30, 2017 · 9 comments

Comments

6 participants
@pulsarinformatique

pulsarinformatique commented Apr 30, 2017

Hi
Seems that any change on the tags or custom fields value in an article doesn't generate a new version of the article.

Steps to reproduce the issue

Create a custom field (any type) and then create an article with this custom field. save it. now change the value of the custom field and check if a new version of the article has been generated (with the VERSION button).

Expected result

When you change the tags or the values of a custom field inside an article we may expect a new version to be generated

Actual result

no new version is generated. the control version only applies to the #__content table

thanks

cyril

System information (as much as possible)

Additional comments

@PhilETaylor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@PhilETaylor

PhilETaylor Apr 30, 2017

Contributor

I raised this a long time ago - and I was told to shut up, this is how it was designed, and this is how it will stay because the developers of those features totally disregarded the versioning system in their architecture and therefore no one can be bothered to re-architecture the features so that they can be versioned...

Contributor

PhilETaylor commented Apr 30, 2017

I raised this a long time ago - and I was told to shut up, this is how it was designed, and this is how it will stay because the developers of those features totally disregarded the versioning system in their architecture and therefore no one can be bothered to re-architecture the features so that they can be versioned...

@PhilETaylor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@PhilETaylor
Contributor

PhilETaylor commented Apr 30, 2017

@Bakual

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Bakual

Bakual Apr 30, 2017

Contributor

I think tags and versioning will be re-architectured for J4. Maybe it's possible then. For J3 and the way those features work it's just not possible to do as far as I can imagine. If you have an idea, feel free to share 👍

Contributor

Bakual commented Apr 30, 2017

I think tags and versioning will be re-architectured for J4. Maybe it's possible then. For J3 and the way those features work it's just not possible to do as far as I can imagine. If you have an idea, feel free to share 👍

@pulsarinformatique

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pulsarinformatique

pulsarinformatique May 15, 2017

It's a pity we have to wait for J4 for a more integrated solution.

Tags and custom fields are now completely ignored for the version control.
The same thing could be said for the lists parameters and the custom fields.

I feel we have much too separated great tools (articles, tags, fields) at our disposal.

thanks

cyril

pulsarinformatique commented May 15, 2017

It's a pity we have to wait for J4 for a more integrated solution.

Tags and custom fields are now completely ignored for the version control.
The same thing could be said for the lists parameters and the custom fields.

I feel we have much too separated great tools (articles, tags, fields) at our disposal.

thanks

cyril

@Bakual

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Bakual

Bakual May 15, 2017

Contributor

Tags and custom fields are now completely ignored for the version control.

I feel we have much too separated great tools (articles, tags, fields) at our disposal.

Actually I think fields is integrated fine, the issue is that the version feature works from the table class and thus can only version control the properties of that class. Since fields a re processed outside of that table class (which is fine), it doesn't get version controlled. The same issue actually exists for extensions which store an item form into multiple tables. It's a limitation of the current version feature.

Contributor

Bakual commented May 15, 2017

Tags and custom fields are now completely ignored for the version control.

I feel we have much too separated great tools (articles, tags, fields) at our disposal.

Actually I think fields is integrated fine, the issue is that the version feature works from the table class and thus can only version control the properties of that class. Since fields a re processed outside of that table class (which is fine), it doesn't get version controlled. The same issue actually exists for extensions which store an item form into multiple tables. It's a limitation of the current version feature.

@pulsarinformatique

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pulsarinformatique

pulsarinformatique May 15, 2017

I agree with you. From a webmaster point of view, whether it comes from the control version or the tag implementation, we feel we are lacking something.

when you change a tag or a custom field in an article you expect it generates a new version

pulsarinformatique commented May 15, 2017

I agree with you. From a webmaster point of view, whether it comes from the control version or the tag implementation, we feel we are lacking something.

when you change a tag or a custom field in an article you expect it generates a new version

@PhilETaylor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@PhilETaylor

PhilETaylor May 15, 2017

Contributor

I think tags and versioning will be re-architectured for J4.

No evidence for that statement.

Too many people suggesting that Joomla 4 will solve everyones hopes and dreams.

Contributor

PhilETaylor commented May 15, 2017

I think tags and versioning will be re-architectured for J4.

No evidence for that statement.

Too many people suggesting that Joomla 4 will solve everyones hopes and dreams.

@Bakual

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Bakual

Bakual May 15, 2017

Contributor

No evidence for that statement.

Yep, no evidence, but I saw two new plugins "taggable" and "versionable" in a new plugin group "behaviour" and the observer classes are gone. This made me believe something changed (and then "hope" started).

Contributor

Bakual commented May 15, 2017

No evidence for that statement.

Yep, no evidence, but I saw two new plugins "taggable" and "versionable" in a new plugin group "behaviour" and the observer classes are gone. This made me believe something changed (and then "hope" started).

@mbabker

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mbabker

mbabker May 15, 2017

Member

What changed is the observable pattern in JTable being replaced with "regular" plugin events. IIRC pretty much everything that didn't have the "normal" event dispatching setup (i.e. JEditor) has been updated to use our (now) singular event dispatcher and plugins.

Member

mbabker commented May 15, 2017

What changed is the observable pattern in JTable being replaced with "regular" plugin events. IIRC pretty much everything that didn't have the "normal" event dispatching setup (i.e. JEditor) has been updated to use our (now) singular event dispatcher and plugins.

@joomla-cms-bot joomla-cms-bot changed the title from Tags, custom fields and version control to [com_fields] Tags, custom fields and version control Nov 7, 2017

@brianteeman brianteeman added this to To do in Joomla 3 - Fields via automation Aug 18, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment