Issue since 8.4.4 - Can't add Stacks to the content pages, by any method

[cwpm]

Since the recent update tot he CMS on version 8.4.4 you can't add Stacks that contains any blocks to a page of content.
Tested the previous version 8.4.3 and it works fine.
Tested on 8.4.4 project and displays issue, so does a new vanilla setup.
I've not got the capability to test your recent Develop version.

Steps to replicate

• 1. Create a new Stack. Any name, and add at least 1 block (any block) to the Stack and ensure it's approved.
• 2. Go to an existing page, or create a new page
• 3. Go into edit mode.

Method 1

1. Select the + sign "Add Content to page", select "Stacks". Then click the Stack and try to drag it.
2. Issue: It just expands the Stack to show the contents
3. Issue: You can't drag & drop the Stack

Method 2

1. . Select an area of the page e.g. MAIN. And select "Add Block", select "Stacks".
2. Issue: It just expands the Stack to show the contents
3. Issue: Selecting the Stack doesn't add it into the area.

So since the recent update, you can't add stacks of content in the CMS.
Can this be looked into and resolved as Stacks can be very key.

[mlocati]

I can confirm this. It may be related to the changes of #7357.

[mlocati]

What's even worse is that you can display the blocks of the stacks (by clicking on the stack name in the "Add Stack" panel), and drag those blocks to the page (!).

[aembler]

Drag the stack before opening it

[mlocati]

I wasn't able to drag the stacks because I tried to drag their names: we have to drag the icons.

BTW I don't think that we should allow dragging the blocks contained in the stacks:

Furthermore, IMHO we have 2 things that could be improved:

1. it's not clear that we can drag only the icon and not the name
2. it's not clear that by clicking the stack names we can see their contents

So, what about:

1. making both the icon and the name draggable
2. adding an arrow (⯆/⯅) next to the names to expand/collapse the stacks contents?

[aembler]

A couple things:

1. Yes, l agree an update/down caret in the corner would be nice to denote that you could actually open the stacks.
2. I'm all for making everything clickable and everything draggable – but in practicality that felt pretty bad, being able to actually drag the stack AND click on it to open it. It was nice having a discreet handle to drag and another area to click to get to the contents.
3. You actually get a JS error if you drag a single block out of the stack. It works once, but you need to refresh the page to get it to work again. I think we should fix this but I didn't have time the first time. I think losing the ability to drag a single block out of the stack will upset people as I know people drag single blocks out of the stack all the time.
   This was a quick and dirty request because the previous approach to stacks make them completely unusable on some sites, so we tried to get a quick fix in there, this isn't perfect. I think

[mlocati]

About 2. I'd make the icon and the name (only) draggable. And I'd expand/collapse the stack content only by clicking the down/up arrow

About 3: I wasn't aware that we could add to pages blocks contained in stacks...

[cwpm]

Number 3

I think losing the ability to drag a single block out of the stack will upset people as I know people drag single blocks out of the stack all the time.

I think it will cause a stir, as some people do use it for this feature to ease of use. So I'd say keep it if you can.

[aembler]

Yes, we won't be removing that feature – I think this is a combination of insufficient feedback/obviousness on our part, along with a couple JS bugs.

[aembler]

Since this issue is inaccurate as reported, I'm closing it. Feel free to open alternate issues to address what we've talked about in this thread.

[cwpm]

Isn't it best to keep it this as same reported issue, yes it's had abit of a journey after further investigation to highlight what the core issue is but then you've got the history here and you know what you need to resolve.

So who'll creating a new issue to reflect what this issue that was discussed and your changes in mind to make?

[aembler]

To answer your second question first, it's typically whomever thinks it's important enough to report. Feel free to open the second issue for discussion about how it could look/work.

And there's no reason the new issue can't reference this issue for continuity/discovery – but this issue as described isn't accurate, which is why it was closed.

[cwpm]

Created new issue: #7526