[#48439] - [6.3] classes for fieldgroups
- Closed
- 18 Sep 2026
- Medium
- Build: 6.3-dev
- # 48439
- Diff
- chmst:6.3/classes-for-fieldgroups
User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:
Pull Request resolves #46983 .
- 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
Add params to Fields groups.
The user can decide if he wants to group fields in the frontend and if yes can specify css classes.
When grouped fields are rendered in frontend, they are in an own container and can be styled via user.css.
The soultion does not affect existing sites, no b/c.
Testing Instructions
Make field groups and set params and classes. Add fields into groups (or not).
Check your frontend, play with user.css.
Actual result BEFORE applying this Pull Request
Expected result AFTER applying this Pull Request
NOTE: This is Draft.
Database files will follow when th PR is accepted,
Link to documentations
Please select:
-
Documentation link for guide.joomla.org: Fieldgroups
-
No documentation changes for guide.joomla.org needed
-
Pull Request link for manual.joomla.org:
-
No documentation changes for manual.joomla.org needed
| Status | New | ⇒ | Pending |
joomla-cms-bot
- | Category | ⇒ | Administration com_fields Language & Strings Front End |
| Labels |
Added:
Language Change
PR-6.3-dev
|
||
I've not yet had the need for this but playing more with custom fields lately, I could see the use in the future so thank you for the work.
I have tested this item ✅ successfully on b2e9a72
Worked as described
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/48439.
I have tested this item ✅ successfully on b2e9a72
Worked as described
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/48439.
I have tested this item ✅ successfully on b2e9a72
Worked as described
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/48439.
I have tested this item ✅ successfully on b2e9a72
Tested with github Codespaces
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/48439.
I have tested this item ✅ successfully on b2e9a72
Tested with github Codespaces
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/48439.
I have tested this item 🔴 unsuccessfully on b2e9a72
Sorry, tested only with contentFieldGroups successfully, on userFieldGroups it does not work.
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/48439.
I have tested this item 🔴 unsuccessfully on b2e9a72
Sorry, tested only with contentFieldGroups successfully, on userFieldGroups it does not work.
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/48439.
@degobbis thank you for testing. You are refrring to user profile? Or something other?
User profiles a completely different layout and group fields in fieldset, with legend as a definition list < dl >
It would be a big b/c break if we change that in any way.
What would you suggest to resolve that?
It may well be that the user profile output renders a different layout, but if the option of using a custom class for the field group is available, it should work. Especially as it does produce the expected result for the content.
And as far as I can see here, the definition list is enclosed within a fieldset, where you could indeed specify the class.
https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/blob/6.3-dev/components/com_users/tmpl/profile/default_custom.php#L40
@chmst It may well be that the user profile output renders a different layout, but if the option of using a custom class for the field group is available, it should work. Especially as it does produce the expected result for the content.
And as far as I can see here, the definition list is enclosed within a fieldset, where you could indeed specify the class.
https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/blob/6.3-dev/components/com_users/tmpl/profile/default_custom.php#L40
And as far as I can see here, the definition list is enclosed within a fieldset, where you could indeed specify the class.
Fieldset is better a11y when the profile writable (edit user profile).
User profiles have a completely different concept with fieldsets an definition lists, mixed with old user profile fields. So I close this, maybe J8 gets consistent usage of custom fields in all components and get rid of the old userprofile fields.
| Status | Pending | ⇒ | Closed |
| Closed_Date | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | ⇒ | 2026-09-18 07:56:07 |
| Closed_By | ⇒ | chmst |
I don't know why it is not possible to respond on a review, so I ask here as non-native speaker?
@brianteeman
I tried to make clear that "Fieldsgroup" is one group of fields and that the whole group has one css class.
We don't make a Group of fields which have the same css class (this is what I understand in your suggestion).
Is "Group CSS Class" acceptable?