Closed (fixed)
Project:
Related links
Version:
master
Component:
Code
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Feature request
Assigned:
Reporter:
Created:
20 Sep 2006 at 19:35 UTC
Updated:
24 Oct 2006 at 21:45 UTC
I'd prefer to have this module display one block instead of two. Rather than having a separate block for taxonomy links, they should be included in the Related Links block under the subheading "Related Terms".
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| relatedlinks.module.patch_5.txt | 9.66 KB | colan |
Comments
Comment #1
Zen commentedApplied a slightly modified version of this patch; IIRC, the only change of consequence that I made was to move the variable check from _relatedlinks_get_terms to the hook block. Please review when you get a chance :)
I am also of the opinion that the structure should be as follows:
As mentioned earlier, this has been committed to HEAD, not the 4.7 branch. Please check accordingly.
Cheers :)
-K
Comment #2
colanI agree that sublists without headers should join the previous list. That makes total sense.
As for having separate blocks for each link type, I'm not convinced that it's a good idea. I think it looks much more organized to have all links in one block and then sub-classify them. What about if we add a checkbox to the link type configuration? Is that what you meant? If enabled, that link type will be in its own block (unless there's no header). If left unchecked, there would be a section for that link type in the related links block.
This "Separate Block" control would leave the decision up to the user, without him/her having to mess around with the CSS.
Comment #3
Zen commentedDistinct sub-divisions within the same block go against the very nature of a block and immediately ties down the administrator's options. Separate blocks provides the admin with a lot more flexibility and manageability and allows him/her to leverage other modules such as block bar etc.
Cheers,
-K
Comment #4
colanAh, I see what you mean now. Okay, I'll address this with the configuration patch.
Comment #5
(not verified) commented