Ok. I'm a bit confused (as usual).

@Quy The original lines 79 to 84 were like this:
<div class="blog-item-content"><!-- Double divs required for IE11 grid fallback -->
<?php
$this->item = & $item;
echo $this->loadTemplate('item');
?>
</div>
(can't get the indentations to show here)

I removed the first and last line, so it should have looked like this for lines 79 to 82 inclusive:

<?php
$this->item = & $item;
echo $this->loadTemplate('item');
?>

I don't know why the opening and closing php tags are not lined up. They were when I edited the file in my repository.

@zero-24 You are asking me to change the single php code with two items into two separate php items like this:

<?php $this->item = & $item; ?>
<?php echo $this->loadTemplate('item'); ?>

PHP is definitely not my field of expertise, so could you explain why they need to be two separate instructions? Thanks.

And what does 'Resolve conversation' mean?

Sorry (again). I'm looking at Github's instructions (https://help.github.com/en/articles/reverting-a-pull-request) but do not see 'Revert' anywhere:

It might be easiest just to close this one and start all over again.

is this right?

@N6REJ that is nothing to do with this PR. Please create your own issue instead of introducing new issues to an existing pr

There's some CSS associated with blog-item-content class

It will need to be updated.

There's some CSS associated with blog-item-content class

joomla-cms/templates/cassiopeia/scss/blocks/_modifiers.scss

Line 156 in 63cc82f

.blog-item-content {

It will need to be updated.

In that case, why not just leave the file as it was and only remove the IE11 comment from the file instead of the whole div?

If those nested divs were added only because IE needed them, it would be nice to have them removed. SCSS changes are pretty simple. Just need to move .blog-item-content rules to .blog-item.

If those nested divs were added only because IE needed them, it would be nice to have them removed. SCSS changes are pretty simple. Just need to move .blog-item-content rules to .blog-item.

Ignore - commented incorrectly, so removed it.

Relevant SCSS code is linked in the comments above.

Relevant SCSS code is linked in the comments above.

Sorry, yes, that's why I removed my comment. I couldn't see how to delete it.

Ok. I've looked at the scss files, but as I have zero experience using scss I can't offer to change this code. There's some code for @media (max-width: 767.98px) that appears in the template.css but not in the above scss file, so that must be held somewhere else. If I attempt to change this code I'll probably screw it up.

@N6REJ that is nothing to do with this PR. Please create your own issue instead of introducing new issues to an existing pr

@brianteeman
Like usual you have to be a jerk and ignore the item... This is part of the file she's submitting so why would this NOT be the proper time to bring it up. STOP BEING A JERK!

@Scrabble96 @SharkyKZ I believe what he's saying is you could move 157-197

  flex-direction: column;
  .boxed & {
    background-color: #fff;
    box-shadow: 0 0 2px rgba(52, 58, 67, 0.1), 0 2px 5px rgba(52, 58, 67, 0.08), 0 5px 15px rgba(52, 58, 67, 0.08), inset 0 3px 0 $cassiopeia-template-color;
    .item-content {
      padding: 25px;
    }
  }
  .image-left &, .image-right & {
    flex-direction: row;
  }
  .item-image {
    margin-top: 3px;
    margin-bottom: 15px;
    overflow: hidden;
    .boxed & {
      margin-bottom: 0;
    }
    .image-right & {
      order: 1;
    }
    .image-bottom & {
      order: 1;
      margin-top: -15px;
    }
  }
  .item-content {
    .image-left & {
      padding-left: 25px;
    }
    .image-right & {
      padding-right: 25px;
    }
  }
  .image-left &, .image-right & {
    flex-direction: row;
    @include media-breakpoint-down(sm) {
      flex-direction: column;
    }
  }

and move it between 93 & 94 so that it would be this..


 .blog-item {
  padding: 0 ($cassiopeia-grid-gutter / 2) $cassiopeia-grid-gutter ($cassiopeia-grid-gutter / 2);
    display: flex;
  flex-direction: column;
  .boxed & {
    background-color: #fff;
    box-shadow: 0 0 2px rgba(52, 58, 67, 0.1), 0 2px 5px rgba(52, 58, 67, 0.08), 0 5px 15px rgba(52, 58, 67, 0.08), inset 0 3px 0 $cassiopeia-template-color;
    .item-content {
      padding: 25px;
    }
  }
  .image-left &, .image-right & {
    flex-direction: row;
  }
  .item-image {
    margin-top: 3px;
    margin-bottom: 15px;
    overflow: hidden;
    .boxed & {
      margin-bottom: 0;
    }
    .image-right & {
      order: 1;
    }
    .image-bottom & {
      order: 1;
      margin-top: -15px;
    }
  }
  .item-content {
    .image-left & {
      padding-left: 25px;
    }
    .image-right & {
      padding-right: 25px;
    }
  }
  .image-left &, .image-right & {
    flex-direction: row;
    @include media-breakpoint-down(sm) {
      flex-direction: column;
    }
  }
}

you could then remove the empty 

.blog-item-content {
}

@N6REJ Adding unrelated changes to a pull request complicates matters. Just because someone is changing a file does not give carte blanche to request every line in that file be reviewed or changed. Patches should focus on a singular change only.

@N6REJ Adding unrelated changes to a pull request complicates matters. Just because someone is changing a file does not give carte blanche to request every line in that file be reviewed or changed. Patches should focus on a singular change only.

@mbabker ty. As you know I would never presume I have carte blanche, but your response explained things better. Thanks

ugh, I always make a mess... @Scrabble96 hope that helps you.

@mbabker This is not an unrelated change. SCSS must be updated to account for markup changes in this PR. Otherwise the styling is broken.

Thank you @N6REJ and @SharkyKZ
I'll have a look later today at adding that code. It makes sense as my PR fails otherwise.

Not the SCSS, the other question about the item var assignment.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be doing, now. @N6REJ has made the SCSS changes into his own branch, but it appears to have failed checks, so if I tried the same thing, wouldn't it have the same result?

This PR is showing as 'All checks have passed' What happens next?.

Failed checks unrelated. If SCSS changes are not included in this PR then #26208 should be merged first before this can be tested. In the meantime could you remove the second instance of the same code and fix indentation?

In the meantime could you remove the second instance of the same code and fix indentation?

I've deleted a branch hope that's achieved what you want which is I think where the other instance of the changed file was. This repo thing is very, very confusing to a new user.
I've looked at the changed file on here and as far as I can see the paired div tags are lined up, so I don't know what else needs changing.

@N6REJ No. Thats not what I said. You have to submit them as pr here https://github.com/Scrabble96/joomla-cms/tree/Scrabble96-patch-4

@brianteeman if that doesn't fix it I give up.. idk how to do anything else.

#26238 (comment)

If true then this would also need to be closed

@N6REJ and @brianteeman I have no idea what's going on now. PRs have been submitted to my patch. What do I do with them?

If I click 'Resolve conflicts' it just highlights some code but doesn't say what the conflict is. I suspect that my original change to the SCSS has been outdated by @ciar4n's changes for mobile-first code in PR #26237.

Ok. I'm going to close this. If someone else wants to start again they are welcome.