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

Blueprints: fix Block naming inconsistency #6137

Closed
mrflix opened this issue Jan 12, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #6162
Closed

Blueprints: fix Block naming inconsistency #6137

mrflix opened this issue Jan 12, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #6162
Assignees
Labels
type: enhancement ✨ Suggests an enhancement; improves Kirby type: refactoring ♻️ Is about bad code; cleans up code
Milestone

Comments

@mrflix
Copy link
Contributor

mrflix commented Jan 12, 2024

Description

Currently in blueprints, every field is named by its label. Except blocks. Blocks are named by their title and the label value is used as a subtitle (TIL #4194). This leads to developer mistakes when naming custom blocks, because one would expect that the label value would also name blocks.

Expected behavior
I'd expect to be able to use label to name a custom block. For example by falling back to use label when a label and no title are defined.

Your setup

Kirby Version
4.0.2

@distantnative distantnative added type: enhancement ✨ Suggests an enhancement; improves Kirby type: refactoring ♻️ Is about bad code; cleans up code labels Jan 14, 2024
@distantnative distantnative added this to the 4.1.0 milestone Jan 14, 2024
distantnative added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 16, 2024
@distantnative distantnative self-assigned this Jan 16, 2024
@distantnative distantnative linked a pull request Jan 16, 2024 that will close this issue
3 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type: enhancement ✨ Suggests an enhancement; improves Kirby type: refactoring ♻️ Is about bad code; cleans up code
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants