[#25367] - [4.0] [MVC] Always set model/view prefix, correct base path detection
- Fixed in Code Base
- 23 Jul 2019
- Medium
- Build: 4.0-dev
- # 25367
- Diff
- SharkyKZ:j4/mvcBasePath
- Pending Hound Hound is busy sniffing around... Details
User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:
Pull Request for Issue #23510.
Summary of Changes
This should fix using admin base path in frontend, e.g. when using Editors-XTD plugins.
Testing Instructions
Edit an article in frontend.
In editor, click CMS Content and any button (except Page Break or Read More)
Expected result
Modal with a list of items opens up.
Actual result
Modal with error appears, e.g.:
View not found [name, type, prefix]: contacts, html,
Documentation Changes Required
Maybe.
| Status | New | ⇒ | Pending |
joomla-cms-bot
- | Category | ⇒ | Libraries |
If this is about the messy code, it seems to be here for B/C-ish reasons. We could stop using base_path configuration option in J4 components and just pass the appropriate prefix everywhere. Similarly like suggested here #23539 (comment).
| Labels |
Added:
?
|
||
I have tested this item
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/25367.
I have tested this item
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/25367.
I have tested this item
It seems that some backend language filesa are not loaded in the modals, but I think that's another issue and not subject of this PR, right?
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/25367.
i suppose so
| Status | Pending | ⇒ | Ready to Commit |
RTC
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/25367.
@richard67, yes. Related issue #25344.
| Labels |
Added:
?
|
||
Sure, but as far as I understand him, the right way would be far beyond the scope of this PR, and so I think this "ugly hack" is ok as a bug fix right now. Medium or long term we should really think over if this admin site thing still makes sense for plugins, modules, packages, and components, if I understand him right.
I don't think that PR was a hack. But even if it was, it's not an excuse to add more hacks.
Depends ... if adding hacks means more consistency because existing code is alrerady full of hacks it could make sense
Sure, but as far as I understand him, the right way would be far beyond the scope of this PR
We could do it here. This PR really just moves some existing code around. The code that was initially added for B/C reasons, so we wouldn't have to set prefixes per component. We could remove this code from MVC library and set correct prefixes in components. But this would affect 3rd party components as they would also have to do the same.
I see.
| Status | Ready to Commit | ⇒ | Fixed in Code Base |
| Closed_Date | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | ⇒ | 2019-07-23 18:39:02 |
| Closed_By | ⇒ | wilsonge |
Thanks!
Actually spent some time on this and the fix looks cleaner to me than what we had before too
All this pull request is doing is re-affirming my feeling that it is time to deprecate having separate extensions per application (minus templates). Because there are more hacks to "proxy" things than benefits this separation really brings.