Skip to content
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

Do not manually set $_GET parameter in form data providers #137

Open
o-ba opened this issue May 26, 2023 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #138
Open

Do not manually set $_GET parameter in form data providers #137

o-ba opened this issue May 26, 2023 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #138
Labels

Comments

@o-ba
Copy link

o-ba commented May 26, 2023

The code added with a137775 should be removed again as it leads to unreliable behaviour in the backend, based on record state (e.g. having inline children or not). See e.g. https://github.com/TYPO3/typo3/blob/v11.5.27/typo3/sysext/extbase/Classes/Configuration/BackendConfigurationManager.php#L150

@o-ba o-ba linked a pull request May 26, 2023 that will close this issue
@IchHabRecht
Copy link
Owner

Hi @o-ba,

Would you mind to describe the issue you have in the backend with that patch?

@o-ba
Copy link
Author

o-ba commented May 26, 2023

Sure. The problem basically is that there are a view places in core, which check for $_GET['id']. One of them is the BackendConfigurationManager. We're for example using the manager in a custom LinkHandler, where we fetch the full TypoScript config. So depending on the content element loaded - e.g. whether it is a inline relation or not (https://github.com/IchHabRecht/content_defender/blob/main/Classes/Form/FormDataProvider/TcaColPosItems.php#L50) - the resolved TypoScript config differs due to the resolved current page id. Without this patch, the page id in this example will always be the same.

@IchHabRecht
Copy link
Owner

Hi @o-ba,

Thank you for your update. Unfortunately I'm not able to verify the problem with the given information. I would need some steps how to reproduce a problem to be able to solve this. As the revert would reintroduce #91 I won't revert it a this point.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants