Problem/Motivation
In certain situations, where the no field settings sentence is on the global field settings tab, a newline is missing.
Proposed resolution
No proposal yet.
Remaining tasks
- Locate cause of problem
- Implement the change, provide patch
- review patch
- A screenshot with the fix would be nice
.
User interface changes
Not really.
API changes
No api changes anticipated.
Releated Issues
Comment | File | Size | Author |
---|---|---|---|
#2 | drupal-has_no_field_settings_translation_enable_newline-1876122-2.patch | 638 bytes | YesCT |
#1 | newline-s01-ok-disabledfield-2012-12-29_0346.png | 115.17 KB | YesCT |
#1 | newline-s02-missing-2012-12-29_0348.png | 119.89 KB | YesCT |
#1 | newline-s03-okcheckboxtoenableordisable-2012-12-29_0352.png | 85.94 KB | YesCT |
Comments
Comment #1
YesCT CreditAttribution: YesCT commentedIt's ok if there is some field after the translation field.
It's ok when there is no content in a field yet.
Here is the problem: missing whitespace
Comment #2
YesCT CreditAttribution: YesCT commentedThis just makes the "has no field settings" line a paragraph.
I'm thinking maybe instead/in addition to put the translation enable/disable in a div.
Comment #3
YesCT CreditAttribution: YesCT commentedrelated #1876134: "has no field settings" does not make sense (follow-up to Adding new fields leads to a confusing "Field settings" form)
I wonder if the translation setting should be added to the form in a way that it's picked up as a field setting (so it does not say there are no field settings). To be discussed in that related issue probably.
Comment #4
fenda CreditAttribution: fenda commented@YesCT: Looking at your patch you've put p tags within the #markup. I was always wondering if there is any coding standards on if these should be in #prefix and #suffix for render arrays? I looked through core and there doesn't seem to be any consistency.
Comment #5
YesCT CreditAttribution: YesCT commented@drupaljoe Good question. I'm not sure I know how to find the answer... unless we can find the issue that added the ability to use the prefix/suffix/markup and see if there is some guidance there.
The other common answer to thing like this is: check and see what other parts of core are doing.... grep votes... :) [edit to use code tag]
7:
grep -R "<p>" * | grep prefix | grep -v patch | grep -v interdiff | wc -l
18:
grep -R "<p>" * | grep "</p>" | grep markup | grep -v patch | grep -v interdiff | wc -l
More seriously, I dont know the right approach here, I'm just getting the ball rolling.
Comment #6
YesCT CreditAttribution: YesCT commentedComment #7
tstoecklerThe current approach is absolutely fine and makes sense. I'm not sure #markup even supports #prefix and #suffix, at least I'm pretty sure that in D7 it doesn't. I didn't actually review the change in detail so not setting to RTBC.
Comment #8
Gábor HojtsyIs this going to irrelevant with #1876134: "has no field settings" does not make sense (follow-up to Adding new fields leads to a confusing "Field settings" form)? Not?
Comment #9
YesCT CreditAttribution: YesCT commentedRight.
Comment #10
Gábor HojtsyPostponed?
Comment #11
YesCT CreditAttribution: YesCT commentedheh.