[#47330] - Fix repeatable-table column width calculation ignoring hidden fields
- Pending
- Medium
- Build: 5.4-dev
- # 47330
- Diff
- sadiapeerzada:5.4-dev
User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:
Summary
This PR improves the column width calculation in the repeatable-table subform layout.
Currently the layout calculates column width using the total number of fields, which includes hidden fields such as listorder. This results in incorrect column widths and unused space in the layout.
This change counts only visible fields when calculating the column width, ensuring that the available width is distributed correctly across visible columns while hidden fields do not occupy layout space.
This improves the layout behavior for tables with hidden fields and multiple columns.
Acknowledgement of the AI policy
I confirm that this contribution follows the Joomla project AI contribution policy.
Reference to the issue
No related issue.
Testing Instructions
- Create or edit a form that uses a repeatable-table subform layout.
- Include both visible fields and hidden fields (for example
listorder). - Render the layout in the administrator interface.
- Verify that the column width is calculated based only on visible fields.
- Confirm that hidden fields no longer affect the column width or layout spacing.
| Status | New | ⇒ | Pending |
joomla-cms-bot
- | Category | ⇒ | Repository Layout |
| Labels |
Added:
Test instructions missing
RMDQ
PR-5.4-dev
|
||
P.S.: And please fix the code style issues reported by our CI code style check.
| Labels |
Added:
Updates Requested
|
||
@sadiapeerzada In the description of this PR you wrote:
Reference to the issue
No related issue.
But in your comment in issue 44833 you wrote:
Hi @rogercreagh, I’ve opened PR #47330 which attempts to fix the column width calculation in the repeatable-table layout by ignoring hidden fields when distributing the width.
Could you please test it and let me know if this resolves the issue on your side? Thanks!
That does not fit together.
I had asked you to refer to the corresponding issue in your PR description when there is one.
Furthermore I had asked you to check the code style errors. You can find them here: https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/actions/runs/22802351049/job/66146241629?pr=47330
Ignoring requests by maintainers is not really the best way to start making PRs in an open source repository.
Wasn't this already solved by #42347 and the issue was mistakenly kept open.
@brianteeman That PR referred to another issue #29241 which has been closed. The author of this PR here claims that this PR here solved issue #44833 , which is still open. Not sure if they are duplicate issues, to me they slightly read different.
I’m not here to argue. I’ve noted your comments, but I prefer to keep
things focused on the code and contributions rather than debating the PR
description. I’m still quite new to contributing and learning the ropes, so
I really appreciate your feedback and guidance. It would help me a lot if
feedback could be a little softer, as I’m trying to understand and improve
without feeling too overwhelmed.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2026 at 10:48 PM Richard Fath @.***>
wrote:
richard67 left a comment (#47330)
#47330 (comment)Wasn't this already solved by #42347
#42347 and the issue was
mistakenly kept open.@brianteeman https://github.com/brianteeman That PR referred to another
issue #29241 #29241 which
has been closed. The author of this PR here claims that this PR here solved
issue #44833 #44833 , which
is still open. Not sure if they are duplicate issues, to me they slightly
read different.—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#47330 (comment),
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BMYSZKEA3HCMAI5PQAX5VMD4PRKWVAVCNFSM6AAAAACWKNUZKOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHM2DAMJWHE3DANJWGY
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
@.***>
@richard67 it was this comment that made me think it's indirectly resolved #44833 (comment)
Either way this should be closed
I’m not here to argue. I’ve noted your comments, but I prefer to keep things focused on the code and contributions rather than debating the PR description.
When contributing to a repository for the first time, it is the same as e.g. when joining a singing or sports club for the first time: You adapt to the rules of that club, not vice versa.
I’m still quite new to contributing and learning the ropes, so I really appreciate your feedback and guidance. It would help me a lot if feedback could be a little softer, as I’m trying to understand and improve without feeling too overwhelmed.
My feedback was not unfriendly at the beginning, but you have chosen to ignore my change requests several times. You still have the unrelated change in the readme file in your PR, despite of me having asked you 3 times to remove it.
In this way you are wasting time of maintainers who are not paid people but volunteers scarifying their spare time for this project.
So you should understand if I get a bit unhappy in the meantime.
Either way this should be closed
@brianteeman This PR here? Or the open issue? Or both?
both i think
PS the reason the change to the readme is because you made this PR against a branch with your previous PR included
@sadiapeerzada Please stick with our pull request template and do not remove the pre-defined headings but fill in the missing information instead. This includes
If you don't do that within a reasonable time, this PR will be closed.