Bug #33956
closedBug #46389: Faulty Workspace Placeholders
FAL is not yet compatible with the tceform placeholder feature
90%
Description
The feature merged in https://review.typo3.org/#change,7823 #33235 causes errors in the backend module when used with the new file stuff....
Updated by Tolleiv Nietsch almost 13 years ago
Fixed in commit:f04e09f613219a5d526ef3d08dde1673f0f42702
Would be great if someone could confirm that the "__row|__foreign|name" syntax for the placeholder is really final - in this case I could move this to the Core review directly.
Updated by Tolleiv Nietsch almost 13 years ago
- Status changed from Accepted to Needs Feedback
- Assignee deleted (
Tolleiv Nietsch) - % Done changed from 0 to 90
Updated by Oliver Hader almost 13 years ago
Seems like documentation is missing here as well.
extract from http://forge.typo3.org/issues/33235
Updated by Tolleiv Nietsch almost 13 years ago
Hmmm wait - Tobi's patch was fine and all features introduced are explained there. But I found that within the FAL branch the placeholders utilized another nesting level ("__row|__foreign|name") which wasn't available from his patchset but needed by the FAL fields. That's why I'm asking whether this should pushed to the Core (as additional RFC) or not?
Updated by Gerrit Code Review almost 13 years ago
Patch set 1 for branch master has been pushed to the review server.
It is available at http://review.typo3.org/9203
Updated by Gerrit Code Review almost 13 years ago
Patch set 2 for branch master has been pushed to the review server.
It is available at http://review.typo3.org/9203
Updated by Tolleiv Nietsch almost 13 years ago
- Project changed from 1401 to TYPO3 Core
- Status changed from Needs Feedback to Under Review
- Assignee changed from Oliver Hader to Tolleiv Nietsch
- Priority changed from Should have to Must have
- Target version deleted (
6.0 beta1)
Updated by Oliver Hader almost 12 years ago
- Parent task set to #46389
- TYPO3 Version set to 6.0
Updated by Ingo Schmitt about 11 years ago
- Is Regression set to No
Does this problem still exist in 6.2 Beta 4