Save entry for site #13675
-
|
The problem I've shared this issue in the Craft CMS discord channel and came to the conclusion that currently, the only work-around is using the automatic saves, disabling or using a console command. Feature request Maybe this can even be an option you can configure in the Craft config to set to your personal project preference. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 6 comments 18 replies
-
|
As I understand it, you want to allow entries to have empty I can think of two options:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Third option:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Having said that, I think a |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
If you don't propagate data across languages or sites. It shouldn't be a blocker if you don't update the others. It's like the errors are now propagated through while content isn't. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@thupsi you understand incorrectly. In a country where multiple languages are spoken there are issues with this approach all together, and it's actually a regression rather than an improvement. Imagine the following:
Also propagate field to other sites is not okay at all. In a country where people speak French/Dutch it's an extremely sensitive topic. Serve French content to the Dutch language or vice versa, and you lose trust from your visitors, and they don't return. Also there are legal requirements that required never to serve different languages through each other. And many more. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@michtio While I'm aware of the points you stated above, I was pointing out the fact that technically Craft is doing the right thing and propagating content is not the same as propagating schema. You are absolutely right though that in practice, from a UX standpoint, and for many users, it can be a regression. I also agree that having the content ready for all sites/languages should be handled at the organisation/team level and shouldn't be a blocker for you editorial workflow, not from the CMS side at least. So a warning instead of not being able to save the entry would be ideal. (I apologise if my initial comment came across as dismisive, that wasn't my intention at all.) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
In general @brandonkelly I think if you don't propagate data through different entries, the error handling should behave the same. If data isn't propagated only the adjusted entry should throw errors, not the others, or at least give it a warning. I love the error messages on top as a warning. But only trigger "site can't be saved" if:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Upvote for this since I have a similar issue where I was excited to update to 4.5.3 for dropdown now support default option correctly. It was soon faded when I discovered that I cannot resave entry with these new default option dropdown because Save Entry would trigger save error on another site. And saving on that site would trigger another error loop. I was able to resolve it by disable all sites, resave, then re-enable them. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It’s not possible to only save an entry for a single site. The only thing we could consider changing is providing a way to revert to pre-4.5 behavior, where we only validate the site that’s getting saved directly. This would reopen a pretty glaring governance issue, where it’s possible to avoid validation errors simply by switching to a different site and saving the entry from there instead. (#11569) Couple options that might make sense for us to consider:
We’ll discuss internally… |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@MoritzLost In that video, the Matrix field is marked as changed on both sites. Do you know whether the block in question was added/edited within this draft before you started recording? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I’m testing with the same setup locally, as far as I can tell from your video:
I initially marked those nested Assets and Typed Link fields as not required, and created a couple Matrix blocks and nested Super Table rows with values filled-in for Site A but not Site B. Then I marked those nested fields as required. So now, saving Site B results in required validation errors on the Typed Link fields, as expected. However when I exclusively edit the entry from Site A, nothing I do will trip validation errors on Site B for those fields. I’ve tried:
No matter what I try, everything is saving without cross-site validation errors in Site B, because I’m not editing Site B’s values directly. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
No, the block already existed in the canonical entry. I compared the draft with the canonical entry in both sites. The matrix block exists in both sites in both the draft and the canonical entry. The values are also identical between the draft and the canonical entry. In German, there are four super table blocks with both fields filled out. In English, there are the same four super table entries, but the typed link fields are empty. But the draft and canonical version are identical. Your test setup is correct, that matches our settings exactly. Same as you, I can't reproduce the problem on a fresh entry, only on the existing entries that were created before updating Craft. Hm, maybe it's really only an issue with old entries. The client told me it also happens with new entries, but I've checked the other occurrences again, and those are entries that were created before the last Craft update (that introduced cross-site validation). So maybe it really is only an issue for old contents that could be published before the cross-site validation was introduced, and therefore have validation errors in other sites? What I still don't understand is when the cross-site validation would actually take place. In my testing, when creating a new entry, the cross-site validation was never triggered as long as I only edit the German site, even if required fields are left empty in English. In what scenario would a cross-site validation prevent the German entry from saving? Can this happen if the editor only ever touches the German site (so the English contents only include the initial propagated field values)? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As of 4.5.6+, cross-site validation will only occur for fields which were directly edited on the other site(s). So if your editor goes in to edit an entry in German, and never switches to English, it shouldn’t ever trigger a cross-site validation error. In your video, the draft did already show a record of the field being changed across both sites. I’m not sure how it got into that state, but that’s why you get the cross-site validation error. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@brandonkelly Thanks for the clarification! Maybe my client accidentally changed something in the English and forgot about it, or it was some sort of edge-case coming from the update. I'll let them know again how to avoid that issue, and hopefully it will be smooth sailing from here on out ⛵ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Did you already discuss this internally? Any update on the decision? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yep, we decided to only cross-site validate fields that were modified (c223e90). Update coming soon… |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
It’s not possible to only save an entry for a single site. The only thing we could consider changing is providing a way to revert to pre-4.5 behavior, where we only validate the site that’s getting saved directly. This would reopen a pretty glaring governance issue, where it’s possible to avoid validation errors simply by switching to a different site and saving the entry from there instead. (#11569)
Couple options that might make sense for us to consider: