Skip to content

IBX-11780: Decoupled ContentOnTheFlyProcessor from ContentFormProcessor#1969

Draft
bnowak wants to merge 1 commit into
6.0from
IBX-11780-decoupled-ContentOnTheFlyProcessor-from-ContentFormProcessor
Draft

IBX-11780: Decoupled ContentOnTheFlyProcessor from ContentFormProcessor#1969
bnowak wants to merge 1 commit into
6.0from
IBX-11780-decoupled-ContentOnTheFlyProcessor-from-ContentFormProcessor

Conversation

@bnowak

@bnowak bnowak commented Jul 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
🎫 Issue IBX-11780

Description:

ContentOnTheFlyProcessor no longer delegates to content-forms' ContentFormProcessor and no longer reads the content event payload (removed from the publish flow by the ibexa/content-forms counterpart PR). It saves the draft and publishes synchronously via ContentService on its own — the same pattern as UserOnTheFlyProcessor — because the UDW handshake response must embed an existing location id, which a deferred (asynchronous) publication cannot provide. On-the-fly publishing therefore stays synchronous regardless of the asynchronous content publishing flag.

Implementation note: ContentOnTheFlyController routes edit-on-the-fly publish through CONTENT_CREATE_PUBLISH, so processCreatePublish handles both ContentCreateData and ContentUpdateData; processEditPublish was rewritten for consistency although it is unreachable via the current controller wiring. Unit tests for the processor were added.

For QA:

  • Create content on the fly through UDW (e.g. from a relation field) and confirm the created item is immediately available/selectable in UDW.
  • Edit content on the fly and confirm the flow completes and returns to UDW correctly.
  • Both flows must behave the same with asynchronous content publishing enabled (on-the-fly publishing stays synchronous by design).

Documentation:

No client-facing impact — internal refactoring; on-the-fly publishing remains synchronous.

…or by publishing content synchronously via ContentService and added unit tests
@sonarqubecloud

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants