Fio 9618 render email templates using a core processor by blakekrammes · Pull Request #57 · formio/vm

blakekrammes · 2025-03-28T20:50:04Z

Link to Jira Ticket

https://formio.atlassian.net/browse/FIO-9618

Description

What changed?

Moved email template rendering from using the renderer's getView() functionality to rendering in a core processor using only the form and submission json.

Why have you chosen this solution?

It isn't necessary to use the component class instances in the renderer to generate html for components. We were rerendering forms on the server in order to create html for them (which was error-prone and limited–– for instance, we couldn't evaluate insecure JS on the server), whereas now we just generate html based on the form json and submission data directly.

––––––––––––

Datetime component renders timezone in the email template: (this may have been added in a version since 9.3.2).
Tagpad rendering is fixed and behaves differently from how it did (notice how column headers are duplicated in 9.3.2 and how the 2nd tagpad dot is nested in the first row instead of rendered in the second):
Render multiple values for components that support it (this could be improved I think, especially for text area and address where mere comma-separation is hard to read–– probably a new table with each value as a row would be ideal):

Breaking Changes / Backwards Compatibility

n/a

Dependencies

formio/core#235

How has this PR been tested?

Automated tests (and lots of manual testing):

formio
formio-server (premium component rendering)
Automated tests could be written for some of these cases:
1. https://formio.atlassian.net/browse/FIO-4816
2. https://formio.atlassian.net/browse/FIO-9426 (tested manually)
3. Forms with layout components
4. Doubly-nested forms (just shows submission id for level 2 nested form)

Checklist:

I have completed the above PR template
I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas (in this PR, yes)
I have made corresponding changes to the documentation (if applicable)
My changes generate no new warnings
My changes include tests that prove my fix is effective (or that my feature works as intended)
New and existing unit/integration tests pass locally with my changes
Any dependent changes have corresponding PRs that are listed above

blakekrammes · 2025-04-04T18:09:43Z

There's a problem with rendering wizard forms. I'm working on it.

blakekrammes · 2025-04-07T22:30:24Z

+      `);
+  }
+  const document = scopeRef.emailDom.window.document;
+  if (


do we need to handle any other conditional cases? custom logic?

@blakekrammes almost certainly, but IIRC logic uses the same scope as simple conditionals. You could also consider using the conditionallyHidden and intentionallyHidden ephemeral state that we attach to the component.scope property, which might be a better fit here

@brendanbond

Interesting, from the bit of testing I've been doing, conditionally hidden components don't show up on context.data even if you provide them values in the submission object. I'm wondering if we even need to check for conditionallyHidden here.

@blakekrammes They wouldn't show up in context.data if they were hidden, they'd show up in context.components[i].scope

@brendanbond Ok, so if we're grabbing the component values from context.data, then we don't need to worry about checking conditionals here, right?

Handling of conditionally and intentionally hidden components: https://github.com/formio/vm/pull/57/files#diff-4d714402b169bb5281d6d611950898ba31f5a7e034763efdbcd7dee6d101054aR70

brendanbond · 2025-04-09T16:51:40Z

+      `);
+  }
+  const document = scopeRef.emailDom.window.document;
+  if (


@blakekrammes almost certainly, but IIRC logic uses the same scope as simple conditionals. You could also consider using the conditionallyHidden and intentionallyHidden ephemeral state that we attach to the component.scope property, which might be a better fit here

blakekrammes · 2025-04-10T21:57:08Z

+  );
+  const intentionallyHidden = component.hidden;
+
+  if (conditionallyHidden || intentionallyHidden) return;


handling of conditionally and intentionally hidden components

blakekrammes · 2025-04-10T21:57:36Z

+  return i18n.t(text, params, ...args);
+};
+
+export const isLayoutComponent = (component: Component) => {


now detecting layout type via model types

blakekrammes · 2025-04-10T21:57:49Z

+  return modelType === 'none' || modelType === 'content';
+};
+
+export const isGridBasedComponent = (component?: Component | null) => {


detecting via model type now

blakekrammes · 2025-04-14T16:46:13Z

+  // the address component stores all the data needed for rendering on the component itself
+  // the children (if in manual mode) do not need to be iterated over since their data is redundant
+  // the children are the individual manual mode address fields (address1, city, etc)
+  if (parent?.type === 'address') return;


added this code since address components in manual mode don't need to iterate over their children. context.data at the address component's data path contains everything needed for rendering. iterating over the individual manual-mode address field components is unnecessary.

address component with children:

rowValue (a.k.a. context.data{addressComponentDataPath}):

this investigation stemmed from this ticket. and, while this new email rendering returned the expected output, it was only because the code was not written to properly attach the address children to the email template. I thought it best to avoid iterating over those children entirely.

https://formio.atlassian.net/browse/FIO-10000

* FIO-9618: implement email rendering with jsdom * FIO-9618: Add email rendering for edit grid tagpad - move all dom insertion to renderEmailUtils - todo: nested edit grids, etc * FIO-9618: Fix pathing for nested grid-table components - Clean up other logic * FIO-9618: Add typing for email rendering via core processor - Use core Evaluator string interpolation for address formatting * FIO-9618: Fix datetime timezone handling - Handle empty values corectly for various components * FIO-9618: Use updated core version * FIO-9618: Handle wizards and doubly+ nested forms correctly * FIO-9618: Fix problems with nested grids and forms ** The initial commit was authored by Brendan, the rest and majority of code by Blake Co-authored-by: Brendan Bond <brendanbond@gmail.com>

blakekrammes force-pushed the FIO-9618-core-processors branch 4 times, most recently from 459069c to ff6e304 Compare April 2, 2025 19:57

This was referenced Apr 2, 2025

FIO-9618: Add tests for reworked email rendering formio/formio#1955

Closed

Fio 9618 – Add tests for rendering simple, data, nested components, and components having multiple values in emails formio/formio#1956

Merged

blakekrammes marked this pull request as ready for review April 2, 2025 22:26

blakekrammes force-pushed the FIO-9618-core-processors branch from ff6e304 to d8c8216 Compare April 3, 2025 16:42

blakekrammes marked this pull request as draft April 4, 2025 18:10

blakekrammes force-pushed the FIO-9618-core-processors branch from af426b9 to abf7b16 Compare April 4, 2025 22:06

blakekrammes commented Apr 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

blakekrammes marked this pull request as ready for review April 7, 2025 22:30

blakekrammes changed the title ~~Fio 9618 core processors~~ Fio 9618 render email templates using a core processor Apr 8, 2025

brendanbond requested changes Apr 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

blakekrammes force-pushed the FIO-9618-core-processors branch from 4929c28 to 02bb864 Compare April 9, 2025 17:21

brendanbond mentioned this pull request Apr 9, 2025

FIO-9992: check for server when triggering the captcha formio/formio.js#6085

Merged

7 tasks

blakekrammes force-pushed the FIO-9618-core-processors branch from 02bb864 to fd30165 Compare April 10, 2025 21:53

blakekrammes requested a review from brendanbond April 10, 2025 21:56

blakekrammes commented Apr 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

blakekrammes force-pushed the FIO-9618-core-processors branch 2 times, most recently from 0394a3b to bc29f79 Compare April 14, 2025 16:39

blakekrammes commented Apr 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

blakekrammes force-pushed the FIO-9618-core-processors branch from bc29f79 to 5c79f75 Compare April 14, 2025 16:47

brendanbond merged commit 3763846 into main Apr 23, 2025
5 checks passed

Conversation

blakekrammes commented Mar 28, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Link to Jira Ticket

Description

Breaking Changes / Backwards Compatibility

Dependencies

How has this PR been tested?

Checklist:

Uh oh!

blakekrammes commented Apr 4, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

blakekrammes Apr 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

blakekrammes Apr 14, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

blakekrammes commented Mar 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

blakekrammes Apr 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

blakekrammes Apr 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading