Conversation
…, squashed. This already contains adjustments for Joomla! 4, e.g. changed class files / paths, etc. This does not yet contain any tests made or bugfixes against the 4.0 branch. This will be done after this commit and possible bugfixes will be made in standalone commits. So this basically only contains the code from joomla#22446, adjusted to the 4.0 directory structure.
…r our last commit.
|
Tested but "Sub field *" dropdown doesn't show. This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/24711. |
|
Thanks a lot for your work! I'll post things as I find them... :) A few notes about this...
|
|
Sorry. After @AndySDH post, I understood my mistake. |
|
Some more stuff:
Don't see anything else for now! :) |
|
I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 174a97a This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/24711. |
|
@continga great work, thanks! Besides the feedback already shared by others i found an issue with the media field: The Media field is trowing JavaScript error if the article with field is not saved yet. |
|
@continga could you please resolve the conflicts? |
|
Ok, how do we continue with this PR? I feel like the collective effort to get this merged is not very high, which I think is kind of sad after having received so much positive feedback ealier and after having spent so much work into this. What we should do, from my point of view: We merge this into 4.0-dev now. The codebase for this PR is over one year old (see #22446), and no major issues have been found for a long time, and we had many different tests from different people in that timeframe. There are maybe 2 minor issues present at this time, and I will very gladly fix them after this got merged, because then I know my work is not being a pure waste of time. Additionally, we then get enough time to test this together with the whole community and react on possible problems. The other possibility would be to just close this PR, as we would never get this merged otherwise. Joomla 4 Beta is about to sail away this month, and if we don't get this into beta we can just close it already. What do we do? |
|
iirc #23659 is missing for j4 incl. migration of old fields. ymmv |
|
It is not "missing" in the sense of "it is required to be done" - it just makes sense to remove the repeatable type when this PR got merged, because the new type can do the same as the (then obsolete) repeatable type. I will happily work on #23659 incl. a migration when we got this PR merged. |
|
Yes, this absolutely needs to be merged asap! @wilsonge |
|
Can we get a test of this done fully please. And I'm happy to get this merged before we tag the next alpha on Thursday and I'll rely on you keeping to your word on the upgrade script (which is essential) |
|
Test was fully done, only minor things left to address are in my previous comment on September 8. |
|
OK. Then I'm happy to commit. @continga please ensure you at least sort the migration script and the calendar null date issue |
If you mean the null date usage in the insert statement for the extensions table in the joomla.sql files and the update sql files: This will be fixed with my PR #26491 . I've updated it so it contains the changes from this PR here and then corrects the nulldates for the checked_out_time columns to real null values like for all other extensions. |
|
@Quy Could be maybe ok because on js side, will possibily be set to the right value when writing to db in php. I will check later today or tomorrow. |
|
@continga To reproduce:
|
|
@continga Woud be good if you could add an option for Repeatable Subfields to select a maximum number of rows that can be added (how many times it can be repeated). |
|
@continga Remember to look after any possible tweak, fixes, and the implementation of the migration script happening. The PR has been merged like you requested, now please don't just forget about it :P |
|
hello 2 questions about migration of repetable field to subfield |
|
Well, a PR was ready for 3.9, but it got asked to be rebased for 4.0 |


Summary of Changes
This is a new version of PR #22446 . We had a long discussion in #22446 about the feature of a subfields custom field, and after some feedback-cycles we came up with a good solution.
Sadly, that PR couldn't make it into the 3.x-branch, hence we need to rebase the whole PR and create a new one against 4.0-dev. This is the purpose of this PR. It will implement the functionality from #22446 into the 4.0-dev branch.
Testing Instructions
See #22446 - basically what needs to be tested is the new "Subfields" custom field type, which can contain other custom field instances. It is basically a collection of other custom fields.
We need to check both the correct behaviour in the backend (entering custom field data, editing custom fields), as well as the default-display in the frontend (outputting all kind of different subfields+fields values, etc). See also further down at the docs-link.
Expected result
See #22446
Documentation Changes Required
Yes. I have started to work on it a bit, see https://docs.joomla.org/Custom_fields_type:_Subfields
I will update that docs-page over the coming weeks, it is currently not reflecting the very latest changes. But it is already giving a good quick overview about the feature, and possible cases to test.
Additional information
I am very open for general code feedback, improvement ideas, test cases etc. I am not completely sure whether I followed all J4 coding-guidelines, so I would be glad to get some feedback and correct something - in case it's needed.
Generally, IMHO the feature is already very complex at the current state, so we should take distance from making it even more powerful. It makes more sense to get the current functionality merged, and then working on more advanced matters afterwards.
Also, it seems like choosing a category for a custom field currently seems broken in 4.0-dev generally, not only in this branch? Seems to be caused by an exception being thrown at
joomla-cms/administrator/components/com_fields/Model/FieldModel.php
Line 989 in e2abc09
Summoning @regularlabs @AndySDH - you guys did a great job at testing the previous PR, maybe you could take a look at this one? :)