Details

    • Epic Name:
      Hybrid content edit

      Description

      As a UI user, I want to create and edit content using a Symfony forms based integration

      The general idea is to build-up on top of what was added to repository-forms for User Generated Content (EZP-24339), and re-use those elements for content editing in the backoffice as well.

      For now, creating content without a draft is the only supported use-case. Other fashions should be added:

      • creating content with a draft
      • creating a new version of an existing content item
      • saving a draft while editing

        Issues in Epic

          Activity

          Hide
          Damien Pobel (Inactive) added a comment -

          Inaki Juaniz-Velilla Sylvain Guittard could you attach a screenshot of the expected content edit form to this EPIC (similar to the one attached in EZP-27374) ? if possible with all the supported field types (with their main variations like selection and multiple selection). It does not need to be pixel perfect, I just want to see what you expect (but it would be nice if it could include an example of validation in the edit form)

          Show
          Damien Pobel (Inactive) added a comment - Inaki Juaniz-Velilla Sylvain Guittard could you attach a screenshot of the expected content edit form to this EPIC (similar to the one attached in EZP-27374 ) ? if possible with all the supported field types (with their main variations like selection and multiple selection). It does not need to be pixel perfect, I just want to see what you expect (but it would be nice if it could include an example of validation in the edit form)
          Hide
          Inaki Juaniz-Velilla added a comment -

          Attached Content Type Almighty wireframes for "Create view" and "Create view filled"

          Show
          Inaki Juaniz-Velilla added a comment - Attached Content Type Almighty wireframes for "Create view" and "Create view filled"
          Hide
          Inaki Juaniz-Velilla added a comment - - edited

          For standard inline validation, please check UI Guidelines > Components > Forms (https://ezsystems.github.io/ui-guidelines/#components-form)

          Show
          Inaki Juaniz-Velilla added a comment - - edited For standard inline validation, please check UI Guidelines > Components > Forms ( https://ezsystems.github.io/ui-guidelines/#components-form )
          Hide
          Inaki Juaniz-Velilla added a comment -

          Attached Content Type Almighty wireframes for:

          1. Required fields;
          2. Inline validation cases;
          3. Non-translatable field type messages.

          Show
          Inaki Juaniz-Velilla added a comment - Attached Content Type Almighty wireframes for: 1. Required fields; 2. Inline validation cases; 3. Non-translatable field type messages.
          Hide
          Gunnstein Lye added a comment -

          Thanks Inaki Juaniz-Velilla. About the checkbox, and making it required meaning that it must be checked: Is this how it was in v1 and legacy? One alternative is that "required" doesn't apply to it, another is making it a tri-state: checked, unchecked, and not set, (though that would require enhancement and db change). Seem there are valid use cases for all of these interpretations. Just mentioning it in case this wasn't considered; if it was, carry on

          Show
          Gunnstein Lye added a comment - Thanks Inaki Juaniz-Velilla . About the checkbox, and making it required meaning that it must be checked: Is this how it was in v1 and legacy? One alternative is that "required" doesn't apply to it, another is making it a tri-state: checked, unchecked, and not set, (though that would require enhancement and db change). Seem there are valid use cases for all of these interpretations. Just mentioning it in case this wasn't considered; if it was, carry on
          Hide
          Inaki Juaniz-Velilla added a comment - - edited

          Hi Gunnstein Lye,
          Yes, we are aware of this. It has been discussed within the PM team (ping Sylvain Guittard). Thank you for reminding us this

          Show
          Inaki Juaniz-Velilla added a comment - - edited Hi Gunnstein Lye , Yes, we are aware of this. It has been discussed within the PM team (ping Sylvain Guittard ). Thank you for reminding us this
          Hide
          Sylvain Guittard added a comment -

          Thanks Gunnstein Lye for asking. We had this discussion during the mockup phase and we rediscussed it today.

          About the checkbox, and making it required meaning that it must be checked: Is this how it was in v1 and legacy?

          Yes, it was like that in legacy especially for the information collection. And we did not change it for eZ Platform v1.
          We will keep the same behavior for the eZ Platform v2. First of all to maintain the backward compatibility. And I think this "feature" might be useful for UGC.

          Show
          Sylvain Guittard added a comment - Thanks Gunnstein Lye for asking. We had this discussion during the mockup phase and we rediscussed it today. About the checkbox, and making it required meaning that it must be checked: Is this how it was in v1 and legacy? Yes, it was like that in legacy especially for the information collection. And we did not change it for eZ Platform v1. We will keep the same behavior for the eZ Platform v2. First of all to maintain the backward compatibility. And I think this "feature" might be useful for UGC.
          Hide
          Bertrand Dunogier added a comment -

          In any case I don't see any reason not to implement this.

          Either we do nothing with the required flag, and that's it. Or we map it to the checkbox needing to be checked, and we have this extra feature. Why not ?

          Show
          Bertrand Dunogier added a comment - In any case I don't see any reason not to implement this. Either we do nothing with the required flag, and that's it. Or we map it to the checkbox needing to be checked, and we have this extra feature. Why not ?

            People

            • Assignee:
              Gunnstein Lye
              Reporter:
              Bertrand Dunogier
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              5 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:

                Time Tracking

                Estimated:
                Original Estimate - Not Specified
                Not Specified
                Remaining:
                Remaining Estimate - 0 minutes
                0m
                Logged:
                Time Spent - 3 days, 30 minutes
                3d 30m