I'd like to see the maximum weight of a flexinode field to be increased from 10 to (a minimum of) 30 to accommodate (the manual sorting of) more fields.

CommentFileSizeAuthor
#4 flexinode-field-max-weight.patch1.7 KBmo6
flexinode-increase-weights.patch323 bytesmo6

Comments

Bèr Kessels’s picture

Bèr Kessels commented
Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Needs review

The code needs to be tested a little, however simple it is :)

I like the feature though, a weigth of ten limits teh ability to weight to only 20 fields, this is a rather small amount. Increasing makes sense.

mo6’s picture

mo6
he/him
Primary language Dutch
commented

Actually, a weight of 10 limits it to 10 flexinode fields (not 20) if you don't want the fields to be sorted above the title (if you use a negative weight). Personally I would opt for more than 20, it's easily changed, however. Maybe the weight should be more dynamically calculated depending on the number of fields declared.

Bèr Kessels’s picture

Bèr Kessels commented

I think 30 is just fine.
Unless you feel an urge to make that dynamic increasing stuff, which sounds really nice (and usefull). But don't bother too much, IMO 30 will do fine.

mo6’s picture

mo6
he/him
Primary language Dutch
commented
Version: 4.7.x-1.x-dev » master
StatusFileSize
new flexinode-field-max-weight.patch1.7 KB

Sorry, I felt a terrible urge (I work with large field sets). This patch determines the maximum weight dynamically.

mo6’s picture

mo6
he/him
Primary language Dutch
commented

The maximum weight is now calculated globally (across all content types). Maybe it's better to calculate a maximum for each individual content type.