[#18570] - Fix form name of field form
- Fixed in Code Base
- 19 Aug 2018
- Medium
- Build: staging
- # 18570
- Diff
- Bakual:FixFieldFormName
User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:
Summary of Changes
Simple change: Currently the form name for field forms is like com_fields.fieldcom_content.article. There should be a dot between com_fields.field and com_content.article.
This PR adds that dot the same as it is in the fieldgroup form (https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/blob/staging/administrator/components/com_fields/models/group.php#L98)
Testing Instructions
Make sure creating and editing a field still works.
There should be absolutely no change in behavior as it's only an internal name of the form.
Expected result
Works
Actual result
Works
Documentation Changes Required
None
| Status | New | ⇒ | Pending |
joomla-cms-bot
- | Category | ⇒ | Administration com_fields |
Is the form name used anywhere outside of com_fields? Honestly don't know
Basically every plugin which is listening on the form prepare event for fields. Not sure but in the german glip group somebody posted a link to a filtering extension. Had the impression that it adds some filter fields to a field. Also not sure what easy layouts all does.
I doubt those hook into the field form itself. Filtering stuff sounds like another place (lists), not the field edit form.
Also, technically there is no B/C promise anyway for component stuff and the property isn't part of a public API. Imho it should be fine to fix that bug, but I leave it to others to decide that. We can of course also do it for 4.0.
Can someone make a decision on this please - it is obviously fixing a bug - we just need to know if it is an acceptable b/c/ break (if it even is)
For me it is an acceptable break. We just need to make an announcement in the release notes.
| Status | Pending | ⇒ | Fixed in Code Base |
| Closed_Date | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | ⇒ | 2018-08-19 10:41:05 |
| Closed_By | ⇒ | wilsonge | |
| Labels |
Added:
?
|
||
Note I've merged this into 3.9 as that is more appropriate for this sort of fix
Like the change. But is it not a BC break?