Clone / "Clone in place" for fields

[MattWilcox]

With the new content modelling it's being encouraged to use "generic" base fields, and to reuse them in multiple Entry Types etc, with the option of re-naming both the title and the handle where those field-instances are used.

This works well, until one specific instance use requires some customisation that isn't the handle or title - for example, if there's a light-switch field "show additional details" which is default disabled, but a specific instance use needs to be default enabled.

This requires making a new field at the moment. I'm finding that I'm creating fields "in place" quite often in 5, rather than in the Fields section.

It would be handy if there was a "Clone in place" option, that would have Craft create a clone of the field who's settings could be edited, and which would automatically de-assign the old field and assign the new one.

Templates will likely still need to be changed, but it'd be a neat enhancement.

[thupsi]

+1 from me!

[thupsi]

IMO this would be a great follow up to the fields/merge and entry-types/merge commands coming in 5.3 🙂 And of course, ckeditor/convert/matrix, which I hope will be in a CKEditor relase sooner rather than later!

[brandonkelly]

I actually made an attempt at this earlier this week, but ran into a couple snags. I do see the need for it though, and will give it another shot when I’m not quite as under the gun.

[mmikkel]

...although a UI implementation for this would be nice, I'd be 100% satisfied with something like a fields/split command which worked similarly to fields/merge, but in reverse.

I.e. something like craft fields/split bodyText – then the command would

• give a prompt for entering the new field's name and handle,
• for each usage for the original bodyText field, prompt the user if they want to keep the original bodyText field for that usage, or migrate to the new field
• in the end, project config changes and content migrations are generated and can be deployed to production

[thupsi]

I agree that a cli command would be perfectly adequate and even more powerful for batch splitting many usages.

[ryanleichty]

+1 👍 Had a similar idea though slightly different: #17893