User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:
Pull Request for Issue #14004 .
This PR adds the object to the FieldsHelper::extract method as an optional argument. This way extensions can determine in their helper if the context is the proper one for the current object.
It adds a check to the com_contact helper so it can give the correct context (mail or contact) back based on the passed object (item or form).
Fields show up as expected both in contact and form.
Only the added fields for the contact form show up.
None
We need this because in com_contact (and maybe 3rd party extensions) the context doesn't differentiate between the contact itself and the contact form. It's always "com_contact.contact". So we need a way to differentiate that, which we can do by looking at the object.
With 4.0, we can change the context for the contact form to "com_contact.mail". The question is if we then should remove the optional argument again (and deprecate it right away now) or if we want to leave it for 4.x. Imho, it wouldn't really hurt to pass it and it may be helpful for 3rd parties.
Status | New | ⇒ | Pending |
Category | ⇒ | Administration com_contact com_fields Front End Plugins |
Labels |
Added:
?
|
I have tested this item
Form-Fields not shown in Backend.
I would mark it as deprecated. For me it is cleaner as it is actually. But due the contextes are right now we need this one in the three series.
I have tested this item
I would mark it as deprecated. For me it is cleaner as it is actually. But due the contextes are right now we need this one in the three series.
The thing here is the same as with other stuff for 4.0. I don't feel very comfortable introducing something just to deprecate it right away.
I agree it is cleaner, but imho there is no drawback in passing the object as well and it could be a huge help for some 3rd parties.
Status | Pending | ⇒ | Ready to Commit |
RTC
Status | Ready to Commit | ⇒ | Fixed in Code Base |
Closed_Date | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | ⇒ | 2017-02-11 18:47:45 |
Closed_By | ⇒ | rdeutz | |
Labels |
Added:
?
|
I have tested this item✅ successfully on c024c88
Patch ok for me
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/14015.