User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:
Pull Request resolves #47445.
I read the Generative AI policy and my contribution is compatible with the policy and GNU/GPL 2 or later.
Enhances the com_menus administrator view to support URL-based filter parameters.
Currently, filter interactions rely on POST requests and session state, so filter values are not reflected in the URL. This change updates filter handling to use URL query parameters, improving usability and enabling shareable filtered views.
Key improvements include:
filter[search])Go to Administrator → Menus → Manage
Change filters such as:
Verify that:
Test toolbar actions:
Confirm that these actions still work correctly using POST requests.
No documentation changes for guide.joomla.org needed
No documentation changes for manual.joomla.org needed
I have read the Generative AI policy.
This contribution was created with assistance from AI tools, but I have fully reviewed, tested, and validated the code.
I confirm that:
| Status | New | ⇒ | Pending |
| Category | ⇒ | Administration com_menus |
As you yourself have already mentioned here #47445 (comment), this PR is, if anything, an enhancement.
Please read this to help you choose the right branch
https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms?tab=readme-ov-file#which-branch-should-my-pull-request-target
Please take another close look at whether this is consistent with the rest of the codebase and check whether this behavior actually occurs in other places as well and is expected here.
Implementing this via an inline script is definitely incorrect.
Thank you for your time and your try.
You might want to take some time beforehand to familiarize yourself more thoroughly with the current code of the project and other ressources.
This is obviously wrong
For PRs: Complete the Pull Request template and include test instructions.
@bharath110520 Please read: #47215Thanks for the guidance. I’ve added the test instructions to the PR.
Thanks for the clarification. I’ve updated the PR and added the AI usage declaration.
As you yourself have already mentioned here #47445 (comment), this PR is, if anything, an enhancement. Please read this to help you choose the right branch https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms?tab=readme-ov-file#which-branch-should-my-pull-request-target
Please take another close look at whether this is consistent with the rest of the codebase and check whether this behavior actually occurs in other places as well and is expected here. Implementing this via an inline script is definitely incorrect.
Thank you for your time and your try. You might want to take some time beforehand to familiarize yourself more thoroughly with the current code of the project and other ressources.
Thank you for the feedback.
I understand that implementing this via an inline script in the template is not aligned with Joomla’s architecture.
I explored this approach to validate the behavior, but I see that a proper solution would require changes at the core searchtools or framework level to maintain consistency.
I will take some time to better understand the existing implementation and architectural patterns before attempting a revised approach.
Appreciate your guidance.
Please take another close look at whether this is consistent with the rest of the codebase and check whether this behavior actually occurs in other places as well and is expected here. Implementing this via an inline script is definitely incorrect.
Thank you for your time and your try. You might want to take some time beforehand to familiarize yourself more thoroughly with the current code of the project and other ressources.
| Status | Pending | ⇒ | Closed |
| Closed_Date | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | ⇒ | 2026-03-30 21:53:19 |
| Closed_By | ⇒ | muhme | |
| Labels |
Added:
Test instructions missing
PR-5.4-dev
AI Generated
|
||
@bharath-phenix Thank you very much for your contribution!
We have closed the issue with "In Joomla administrator lists (such as Menus, Articles, etc.), filter values are typically stored in the user session rather than in the URL. This behaviour is therefore expected and not considered a bug."
We will go ahead and close this PR.
@bharath110520 Please read: #47215