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

JFormOption #12453

Closed
wants to merge 19 commits into from
Closed

JFormOption #12453

wants to merge 19 commits into from

Conversation

okonomiyaki3000
Copy link
Contributor

Pull Request for Issue # .

Summary of Changes

This is a revival of #5147 which was really just a continuation of #1192 so please see those for historical discussions.

The basic idea here is to eliminate the need for the many different field types that generate specific kinds of lists while, at the same time, making list, checkboxes, and radiobutton types more flexible and consistent. This is done with the concept of option types. So that now the the <option> tag can take a type attribute (and probably other attributes as needed) which will determine which options are to appear in the select, radio, checkbox or other form control.

Testing Instructions

Create a form with fields using the list, radio, or checkboxes type and assign it options of one or more of the option types....

OK, that's a big hassle. I think what this pr really needs is for these option types to actually be used in the places where they can be used. That is coming soon.

Documentation Changes Required

Certainly.

@okonomiyaki3000
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'll look at some of these failing tests soon and also add some new tests but this latest commit actually puts this feature to use in many of the standard forms. You can now test the usability by using any of these modified forms (for example, the Global Configuration form).

@okonomiyaki3000
Copy link
Contributor Author

This should fix the failing tests but now it looks like I need to rebase.

@okonomiyaki3000
Copy link
Contributor Author

this should fix those conflicts but I had some errors and failures in the tests. only in tests that had nothing at all to do with this PR though. So whatever that means...

@okonomiyaki3000
Copy link
Contributor Author

OK, there was one legit error there that was probably mine. Let's see if it works now.

@brianteeman
Copy link
Contributor

@okonomiyaki3000 Do you want to resolve the merge conflicts or close this?

@dgrammatiko
Copy link
Contributor

I hope we can get this one in J4, the code so much better than the current codebase

@okonomiyaki3000
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hmm. I still want to do this but I think it might be easier to start a new branch instead of trying to rebase this one.

@roland-d
Copy link
Contributor

@okonomiyaki3000 Should we tag this for Joomla 4?

@okonomiyaki3000
Copy link
Contributor Author

I just need to redo the whole thing for Joomla 4.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants