I have tested this item ✅ successfully on c6c5711

Patch works! Also tried to add multiple subform fields to see if the ID gets an extra suffix for the second field.

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on c6c5711

2 fields of type "Subform" in article edit view.

Without PR:

<input name="jform[com_fields][test-subform-field-1]" type="hidden" value="">
...
<input name="jform[com_fields][test-subform-field-2]" type="hidden" value="">

With PR:

<input name="jform[com_fields][test-subform-field-1]" id="jform_com_fields_test_subform_field_1" type="hidden" value="">
...
<input name="jform[com_fields][test-subform-field-2]" id="jform_com_fields_test_subform_field_2" type="hidden" value="">

RTC

Switch to draft because I have to validate the some javascript magic

Swapped from RTC to needs review as it needs more work.

any reason why it need id?

Only purpose of this field is to force Browser to send empty value (we can do the same trick for checkboxes if someone interesting).
It not used by subform.js or anywhere else.

If I right remember the ID is no required for inputs.
You can just close it, or merge as it is.

This pull request has automatically rebased to 4.2-dev.

This pull requests has been automatically converted to the PSR-12 coding standard.

@wilsonge why does it need more work?
@Fedik I'm not sure but I think I needed it for a component to select the input with an unique identifier

Thank you @HLeithner for your proposal.

The maintenance team thinks, that the ID of a field should cover the whole field, not the hidden input only. Could you open a new PR with the changes? Thank you in advance.

Closing this one.

It's a real pain for consistent, I use javascript to address the value of the subform used in one of my component and that subform is the only field that needs this exception....

This pull request has been automatically rebased to 4.3-dev.

This pull request has been automatically rebased to 4.4-dev.