[#32332] - Fix published attribute for Tag field
- Fixed in Code Base
- 23 Feb 2021
- Medium
- Build: staging
- # 32332
- Diff
- joomdonation:fix_published_attribute_for_tag
User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:
Pull Request for Issue #32065 .
Summary of Changes
This simple PR fixes small issue with published attribute of Tag Field Type. According to our documentation, when published set to 1, only published tags should be displayed. As of right now, it always display both published and unpublished tags.
Testing Instructions
- Create some tags (some published tags and some unpublished tags)
- Modify this file https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/blob/staging/administrator/components/com_contact/models/forms/contact.xml#L235, add published="1" after that line.
- Create new contact:
- Before patch: Both unpublished tags and published tags are being displayed
- After patch: Only published tags are being displayed.
| Status | New | ⇒ | Pending |
joomla-cms-bot
- | Category | ⇒ | Libraries |
| Labels |
Added:
?
|
||
@richard67 You are right. It was changed automatically to short array syntax by my editor. I fixed it, should be fine now.
Anyone knows why appveyor is not happy with change? Seems unrelated to the change in this PR.
Restarted appveyor
I have tested this item
Tested successfully in 3.9.25-dev of 11 February in Wampserver 3.2.4 using PHP 8.0.1.
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/32332.
I have tested this item
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/32332.
| Status | Pending | ⇒ | Ready to Commit |
RTC
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/32332.
| Status | Ready to Commit | ⇒ | Fixed in Code Base |
| Closed_Date | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | ⇒ | 2021-02-23 18:09:59 |
| Closed_By | ⇒ | HLeithner | |
| Labels |
Added:
?
|
||
Thanks
@joomdonation As it's for staging and as far as I know we still have to support PHP 5.3 with Joomla 3.9.x and 3.10, it might be necessary to change the short array syntax
[...]back toarray(...).