Joomla! Issue Tracker - CMS

Download
Launch
Feeling Lucky

[#47227] - Fix type inconsistency in getCategoryRoute language parameter

Feature PR-5.4-dev Pending

User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:

avatar jayakrishna200
jayakrishna200
25 Feb 2026

Pull Request resolves #.

  • I read the Generative AI policy and my contribution is either not created with the help of AI or is compatible with the policy and GNU/GPL 2 or later.

Summary of Changes

Fixed type inconsistencies in the getCategoryRoute() method of the Content component's RouteHelper class:

  1. Updated parameter type documentation: Changed $language parameter type from integer to string|null in the docblock to match the actual parameter usage and default value
  2. Corrected default parameter value: Changed default value of $language parameter from 0 (integer) to null for consistency with type hints
  3. Fixed return docblock: Corrected return description from "The article route" to "The category route" (copy-paste error)

These changes align the getCategoryRoute() method signature with the similar getArticleRoute() method and improve code consistency.

Testing Instructions

  1. Navigate to the Content component helper file
  2. Verify that the method signature now correctly reflects the parameter type
  3. Check that existing calls to getCategoryRoute() continue to work as expected
  4. No breaking changes - the method behavior remains the same

Actual result BEFORE applying this Pull Request

The getCategoryRoute() method had type inconsistencies:

  • Docblock declared $language as integer but default was 0
  • The method actually uses $language as a string (compared to '*')
  • Return docblock incorrectly said "article route"

Expected result AFTER applying this Pull Request

The getCategoryRoute() method now has consistent type hints:

  • Docblock correctly declares $language as string|null
  • Default parameter is null
  • Return docblock correctly identifies it returns "category route"
  • Code is consistent with the getArticleRoute() method pattern

Link to documentations

Please select:

  • Documentation link for guide.joomla.org: Not applicable

  • No documentation changes for guide.joomla.org needed

  • Pull Request link for manual.joomla.org: Not applicable

  • No documentation changes for manual.joomla.org needed

avatar jayakrishna200 jayakrishna200 - open - 25 Feb 2026
avatar jayakrishna200 jayakrishna200 - change - 25 Feb 2026
Status New ⇒ Pending
avatar joomla-cms-bot joomla-cms-bot - change - 25 Feb 2026
Category ⇒ Front End com_content
avatar muhme
muhme - comment - 26 Feb 2026

Thank you @jayakrishna200 for your contribution. As this PR does not fix an issue, it is classified as a feature. Could you please rebase it to the 6.1-dev branch?
Please also see the Contributing guidelines.

avatar jayakrishna200 jayakrishna200 - change - 26 Feb 2026
The description was changed
avatar jayakrishna200 jayakrishna200 - edited - 26 Feb 2026
avatar jayakrishna200 jayakrishna200 - change - 26 Feb 2026
The description was changed
avatar jayakrishna200 jayakrishna200 - edited - 26 Feb 2026
avatar jayakrishna200
jayakrishna200 - comment - 26 Feb 2026

Thank you @jayakrishna200 for your contribution. As this PR does not fix an issue, it is classified as a feature. Could you please rebase it to the 6.1-dev branch? Please also see the Contributing guidelines.

Hi @muhme , I’m happy to be a part of the Joomla contributor community and add even a little value. I’ve rebased the PR now, please check and let me know if there’s anything else I should do.

avatar richard67
richard67 - comment - 26 Feb 2026

Thank you @jayakrishna200 for your contribution. As this PR does not fix an issue, it is classified as a feature. Could you please rebase it to the 6.1-dev branch? Please also see the Contributing guidelines.

Hi @muhme , I’m happy to be a part of the Joomla contributor community and add even a little value. I’ve rebased the PR now, please check and let me know if there’s anything else I should do.

@jayakrishna200 GitHub still shows 5.4-dev as base branch. You can change it on GitHub with the edit button with which you also can change the title. It allows to change the base branch with a dropdown.

But maybe better wait with that until the 6.x release managers have made an upmerge, or redo it with a new PR. Currently when the PR is rebased on GitHub it will show unrelated changes until that upmerge is done.

avatar jayakrishna200
jayakrishna200 - comment - 26 Feb 2026

Thank you @jayakrishna200 for your contribution. As this PR does not fix an issue, it is classified as a feature. Could you please rebase it to the 6.1-dev branch? Please also see the Contributing guidelines.

Hi @muhme , I’m happy to be a part of the Joomla contributor community and add even a little value. I’ve rebased the PR now, please check and let me know if there’s anything else I should do.

@jayakrishna200 GitHub still shows 5.4-dev as base branch. You can change it on GitHub with the edit button with which you also can change the title. It allows to change the base branch with a dropdown.

But maybe better wait with that until the 6.x release managers have made an upmerge, or redo it with a new PR. Currently when the PR is rebased on GitHub it will show unrelated changes until that upmerge is done.

Hi @richard67 I was did that as I got comment from my new pr, please let me know, anything I need to do.

avatar richard67
richard67 - comment - 26 Feb 2026

@jayakrishna200 Does your new PR #47241 replace this one here? If so, then please close this one here.

avatar richard67 richard67 - change - 27 Feb 2026
Status Pending ⇒ Closed
Closed_Date 0000-00-00 00:00:00 ⇒ 2026-02-27 10:57:38
Closed_By ⇒ richard67
Labels Added: Feature PR-5.4-dev
avatar richard67 richard67 - close - 27 Feb 2026
avatar richard67
richard67 - comment - 27 Feb 2026

Closing in favour of #47241 .

@jayakrishna200 Please when you create a new PR which shall replace a previous PR created by you, then close that previous PR to avoid unnecessary work for maintainers. Thanks in advance.

Add a Comment

Login with GitHub to post a comment