I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 94aa375

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 94aa375

@SharkyKZ What's the reason for your thumb down?

I have tested this item ? unsuccessfully on 94aa375

This isnt quite correct. Not only are you adding an image class but you are also removing the width and height. Why?

Regarding the image folder isnt there a defined variable for the base images directory in com_media?

@brianteeman I removed width and height as we did for other images in j4.
Adding an individual class to the image allows users adding own css definitons also for width and height, using px, em, rem or whatever they want.

Revert form field folder.

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 251e326

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 251e326

Last change was only code style, so previous test results are still valid. I've restored them in the issue tracker.

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on fbc6282

Works well, tested with bootstrap image classes.

Removal of width and height and usage of image classes is consistent with other places where we define images.

Custom image folder in Joomla root works well.

RTC

Thank you for testing.
As it is now, everyone can style the images as he/she wants.
But there is a gap for migrating from older versions, where maybe width and height for images is set and would be a b/c thing.

Re-Adding width and height as it was before could be done but:

• width as a integer field and assuming it is "px" (default 100px) is old, it could be as well % or rem or em.
• height as an integer field is wrong, it could as well be "auto"

Would be great to have some thoughts @richard67 @brianteeman?

Why not simply ADD your new field to the existing module?

Hmm, the existing code (without this PR) seems to add width and height to the image in any case.

When having a new class field like the one added by this PR, we can use the class in addition to width and height, like e.g. some bootstrap 5 classes for round corners.

But we also might want to use some own class for specifying dimensions. For this use case I think it could be useful to have some way to switch off the width and the height field.

Unfortunately they are integer fields, so there is no option for "no value".

Maybe we could agree to use zero value for that purpose, and in this case not add the corresponding property (width or height) to the image.

Hmm, the existing code (without this PR) seems to add width and height to the image in any case.

That could be changed to only add if present

Hmm, the existing code (without this PR) seems to add width and height to the image in any case.

That could be changed to only add if present

Yes, that was what I was thinking about. But what means "present" in case of an integer field? Greater than zero?

Another thing is that the existing field hard-codes the unit to "px", no way to use "em", "rem", ...

Maybe we should have separate value and engineering unit fields for each width and height?

Maybe it can be done in 2 steps:

1. Change this PR so it doesn't remove the width and height fields but just adds the new image class field.
2. Further enhancements in future PR(s).

What do you think?

@richard67 yes, will do that. With respecting #22065.

If you want to properly support lazy loaded images (and that's what we are aiming for in Joomla 4), a width and height of the image is needed. IMO this is wrong to remove the sizes of the image.

If you want to properly support lazy loaded images (and that's what we are aiming for in Joomla 4), a width and height of the image is needed. IMO this is wrong to remove the sizes of the image.

Thank you! Will re-add fields asap.

set back to pending as requested

I have not tested this item.

We have tested it before the new updates and work correctly with nightly 17 feb

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on ba960ff

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on ba960ff

@chmst As far as I can see it still needs to add back the width and height fields for lazy loading, right? If so, why has the "Updates Requested" label been removed?