Dont you think it should be called "Article Info Title"

On 25 May 2016 at 11:48, infograf768 notifications@github.com wrote:

the info_block_show_title parameter displays in Protostar the sub title
"Details" as coded in

https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/blob/staging/layouts/joomla/content/info_block/block.php#L21-L24

[image: screen shot 2016-05-25 at 11 42 40]
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/869724/15535486/dede21fe-226d-11e6-9e32-2ed99e636fba.png

But the parameter was forgotten in the xmls, thus preventing to choose to
display it or not.
This PR adds the parameter in all xmls concerned.
For example, in Articles Options, one will get the missing field with
label "Details Title"

[image: screen shot 2016-05-25 at 11 42 09]
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/869724/15535529/1298456a-226e-11e6-9824-085b8baad094.png

In order to get, if desired

[image: screen shot 2016-05-25 at 11 46 50]

https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/869724/15535631/76c42e0a-226e-11e6-999f-d5a14ddee08a.png

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

#10621
Commit Summary

• Missing info_block_show_title field

File Changes

• M administrator/components/com_content/config.xml https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/pull/10621/files#diff-0 (11)
• M administrator/components/com_content/models/forms/article.xml https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/pull/10621/files#diff-1 (11)
• M administrator/language/en-GB/en-GB.com_content.ini https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/pull/10621/files#diff-2 (2)
• M components/com_content/views/archive/tmpl/default.xml https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/pull/10621/files#diff-3 (11)
• M components/com_content/views/article/tmpl/default.xml https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/pull/10621/files#diff-4 (10)
• M components/com_content/views/category/tmpl/blog.xml https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/pull/10621/files#diff-5 (12)
• M components/com_content/views/featured/tmpl/default.xml https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/pull/10621/files#diff-6 (12)
• M layouts/joomla/content/info_block/block.php https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/pull/10621/files#diff-7 (2)

Patch Links:

• https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/pull/10621.patch
• https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/pull/10621.diff

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#10621

Brian Teeman
Co-founder Joomla! and OpenSourceMatters Inc.
http://brian.teeman.net/

@infograf768 Plase adjust new fields definitons to http://joomla.github.io/coding-standards/?coding-standards/chapters/xml.md

@brianteeman
Strings changed.

@wojsmol
The purpose of this PR is not to correct the formatting of all xmls concerned as they contain a mixture of different formats (useless imho to only correct the new field). I suggest, once this is merged, and if you wish, to make specific PRs as you did for other items already.

Please test PR. ????

Thanks for changing the string. I agree with @wojsmol that you really should correct the xml code style at the same time

There are 6 xmls with a LOT of fields in each. No time sorry.

@infograf768 i also agree with @wojsmol too. All new PR that use new xml should use the standard in those xml lines.

just the new fields, the others i think @wojsmol already done in his PRs

@infograf768 without fixing the codestyle then I am sorry but this isnt going to get merged

I don't mind. This was done to help. If someone volunteers to propose a PR towards my branch I will merge it.

we need some sort of automated travis cs for xml too. ????

@infograf768 I cen prepare PR against you branch ????

@wojsmol thank you

@infograf768 see infograf768#29 - only for new changes

@andrepereiradasilva PR for com_content is still in front of me.

merged. thanks. but the other fields in these xmls are unchanged.

@infograf768 soon I create PR for com_content that enhances CS for XML and PHP.

this still needs tests ????
i suggest this to be merged first to avoid conflicts.

will test

@test: patch tested, working fine

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on b16dd66

Tested, working fine, thanks JM and wojsmol

This PR has received new commits.

CC: @stellainformatica

As I just added back the default, I have set both to successful test.

RTC. Thanks

Thanks everybody