Possible bleuprint bug?

Kirby 3 Issues 🐛
1

I found an interesting ‘bug’ (not sure if its normal to define it this way). Try the following bleuprint for a page:

title: test
tabs:

  test1:
    label: test1
    sections:
      info:
        type: fields
        fields:
          explanation1:
            type: info
            text: First explanation

  test2:
    label: test2
    sections:
      info:
        type: fields
        fields:
          explanation2:
            type: info
            text: Second explanation
          testField:
             type: number

I know the the field names have to be unique (although I would love to see some sort of grouping mechanism, maybe based on tabs?). But apparently it doesn’t complain about section names. BUT it somehow confuses the info fields, eventhough their names are unique (as the text in both tabs will be identical in the panel).

I find this interesting because when using extended sections, it will essentially create multiple versions of the same field WITH identical identifiers. But that is perfectly fine?

So why I reported this is because this problem also occurs when extending tab-layouts. And to keep unique names across multiple tab-bleuprint-files is a bit more messy than only in one page. And while tab extending does result in problems, it is fine for extended fields (eventhough through query overwriting the same id might point to different places?)

Do I am curious what your thoughts are on this

2

Section names must be unique as well. Also, there seems to be a problem with your indentation of the second tab, but maybe that is just a copy&paste error.

3

Wel spotted, indeed a copy-pasta error.

Regarding the section-names; That still leaves the ‘grouping question’ and the ‘section-extending problem’ . Eventhough a section might be named differently, when extended it will still contain simularly named fields. Or am I missing something? (which Kirby doesn’t complain about)

4

That’s right, an extended field section may not contain fields that already exists in the blueprint and you will have a problem if you extend the same fields section multiple time (the same is true for groups of fields, btw). But that’s not a bug. Maybe a missing feature.

5

Thats the point :smile:, it doesn’t complain if you do duplicate through extending! While it defenitly should if no duplicates are allowed