-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update widget templates with newest z3c.form
extendable attributes.
#181
Conversation
@petschki thanks for creating this Pull Request and helping to improve Plone! TL;DR: Finish pushing changes, pass all other checks, then paste a comment:
To ensure that these changes do not break other parts of Plone, the Plone test suite matrix needs to pass, but it takes 30-60 min. Other CI checks are usually much faster and the Plone Jenkins resources are limited, so when done pushing changes and all other checks pass either start all Jenkins PR jobs yourself, or simply add the comment above in this PR to start all the jobs automatically. Happy hacking! |
The CI failures for On our constraints.txt file we have Can we get a PR that updates Once that passes, we need to update the constraints file (so far @mauritsvanrees work, sorry to put more burden on you 😓 ) and finally we can get this PR to be tested 🎉 It's a bit of a 🐜 🐜 🐜 work, but this way we ensure all pipelines from all packages keep working 😅 Whenever we introduce /cc @ericof @jensens @fredvd @mauritsvanrees how does that sound? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changes LGTM, we need to fix the pipeline, as I mentioned in another comment, and resolve the changes proposed by @thet 👍🏾
Looks great! 🌟
I would say, these changes target Plone |
I saw that I'm able to override the constraints with |
The changes seem better for 6.1 indeed. I have created a very preliminary version of https://dist.plone.org/release/6.1-dev/ |
Thank you! I'll give it a try now. |
95d03a0
to
ff556f7
Compare
Well @gforcada the new |
c85bb1e
to
abe1213
Compare
Hurray! That looks much simpler! |
abe1213
to
d8c526b
Compare
e0543c7
to
fbd528e
Compare
The new button implementation also fixes #142 as we do not need the add/edit form overrides for ActionButtons anymore. |
@gforcada the meta/dependencies checker says that I do not really know how to fix that? |
8d8f10a
to
affcebe
Compare
The problem is that I guess the message could be a bit clearer. |
Thanks! Now I have to take a look why the build is broken 😅 |
1bb3f7d
to
aea9d41
Compare
…new "PatternFormElement" base class
…t and OrderedSelectWidget
aea9d41
to
7fcbeb1
Compare
2aa0202
to
7d5bf74
Compare
Build is green now. @thet wanna take a look? |
Is there anything we should update in docs, for this changes? |
Not for this change. This is almost all internal stuff. But the widget import location should be changed in the docs. Since version |
Update: the imports are fine for now. We need to think about this when we update the widget docs for Plone 6.1 ... |
This PR proposes:
z3c.form>=5.1
.lxml
pattern widget creation in favor ofz3c.form
extendable attributes.Point 2 and 3 came into my mind while cleaning up some widget templates. I'll come up with some commits which will outline my idea of how to get rid of the lxml created widget markup.
This is a major but internal overhaul of the
z3c.form
widget override story and should not break any core packages. Though if someone has madez3c.jbot
overrides ofplone.app.z3cform
widget templates s/he must update them accordingly (or remove them completely in favor of the new implementation).