09:03:22 <erredeco> question: (bug?) in the "new content element" wizard I don't see the "FCE" tab with my fluid content element. Instead, in the "plugin" tab I see... the templates of PAGES!! Why??
09:40:30 <flowbob> still trying to find out how to get something like this to work: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/d114ef8936dd8c720e65
09:47:41 <Akii> looks like the section would know when it's supposed to be empty
09:48:22 <gbod> flowbob: Take a look at https://github.com/FluidTYPO3/view. You might build a template with an empty news section and as an override you take the template with the filled news section. You won't need the f:if structure in this case.
09:56:35 <ruben> hello, im trying to get all fieldnames of a specific contentelement/templates configuration section in my backend modules controller, does anyone knows how to render that manually?
14:03:10 <danilobuerger> yes you can do it like stefano described
14:03:37 <pedda> thanks.. i will check this out right away
14:08:43 <pedda> @danilobuerger does this look valid? config.tx_extbase.objects.TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Persistence\Generic\Mapper\DataMapper.className = BC\MmsTemplate\XClass\DataMapper
14:33:34 <Momodedf> please keep being evil, I love your work ;)
14:34:00 <Momodedf> (oh cld be a song from rihanna)
14:57:54 <Akii> does flux interfere in any way with other BE layouts? I'm getting "No edit access" for column numbers that don't exist
15:27:26 <Akii> hmm seemed to be an outdated version
15:39:06 <ndee_> I won't get a preview of a page template that I created: https://gist.github.com/andypa/ac50cec76d912d8a5119 <-- shouldn't this render a preview in the Page module?
15:43:43 <erredeco> @ndee_ what version of flux do you use
15:59:56 <Akii> very very cool, customer wants to edit information within a plugin - flux 7.1 allows custom BE templates - VHS renders columns by number
16:01:12 <Akii> and ye, the "worst" part was to migrate the templates.. lol
16:09:06 <Akii> can someone point me in the direction where the fluidcontent BE layout is created?
16:10:06 <Akii> or alternatively, how to create a new BE layout without having to create it in the list menu
21:24:09 <NamelessCoder> ok, there might still be a problem then
21:28:35 <NamelessCoder> now we wait a couple of hours for TER to catch up :/
21:30:06 <NamelessCoder> in case you missed it: you can now generate FluidTYPO3 sites using our pseudo-distribution, EXT:site - the extension manager's "Get distributions" lists it now
21:30:52 <danilobuerger> NamelessCoder if i am reading getFields() correctly the promise of only returning FieldInterfaces is wrong
21:31:23 <danilobuerger> Sections or Containers that have children seem to be included too
21:33:36 <NamelessCoder> danilobuerger if I remember the code at this point: FieldContainerInterface should be implemented on Fields as well as Section and Container; if getFields() promises FieldContainerInterface I believe this should add up
21:36:23 <danilobuerger> neither section or container implements FieldInterface, but unsetInheritedValues specifies the argument to be of FieldInterface
21:36:51 <NamelessCoder> they implement FieldContainerInterface which should support the same features, that's my point
21:37:08 <NamelessCoder> changing the type hint to FieldContainerInterface may do the trick
21:37:54 <danilobuerger> FieldContainerInterface doesnt list inherit or inheritEmpty
21:38:16 <NamelessCoder> but it extends FieldInterface right?
21:39:01 <danilobuerger> if it were to implement FieldInterface and if Section and Container where to implement FieldContainerInterface everything would be fine
21:39:48 <NamelessCoder> thinking bout that now, it also adds a bunch of completely redundant properties on containers
21:39:57 <NamelessCoder> how about this as an alternative...
21:41:23 <NamelessCoder> InheritableInterface extends nothing, defines the inheritance related methods. AbstractFormField implements FieldInterface, InheritableInterface. AbstractContainer implements ContainerInterface, InheritableInterface. Method to unset inherited values checks each child for implements InheritableInterface.
21:41:31 <danilobuerger> This touches the mental structure you ahve for flux, so my suggestion might not be relevant, but we could also have an InheritInterface or something like that
21:43:02 <danilobuerger> alright, i am in the mood to implement it
21:43:16 <NamelessCoder> it will take a bit of surgery to get there
21:43:47 <NamelessCoder> not sure but checking: setParent() might need to go on that interface as well, meaning that places where setParent() is called then need to check instanceof
21:44:38 <NamelessCoder> if it's purely semantical then no problem keeping it on FormInterface where it currently is
21:47:43 <NamelessCoder> I think set/getParent() is embedded too deep for that separation to make sense.. just leave that as-is
21:49:31 <NamelessCoder> guess I'll make another video while you code :p
21:59:41 <danilobuerger> NamelessCoder unsetInheritedValues requires getName() so 1) InheritableInterface offers a getName 2) InheritableInterface extends FormInterface
22:05:31 <danilobuerger> NamelessCoder another problem is the creation of components, createField returns FieldInterface ... maybe it would be better moving the inherit methods into the FormInterface
22:12:42 <NamelessCoder> inheritableInterface should offer getName()
22:13:05 <NamelessCoder> extending FormInterface is excessive and getName() has no parameters so it's safe to duplicate
22:13:50 <NamelessCoder> inherit methods on forminterface would imply that every component including Form itself and wizards all support inheritance
22:18:54 <NamelessCoder> I think you actually could do that.. you'd need to define some additional getters/setters in some classes and processing each record would take a bit longer if you had wizards in the form, but it should work
22:19:20 <NamelessCoder> as in: not break; it probably won't fix inheritance of stuff like inline related records and section objects
22:37:02 <danilobuerger> NamelessCoder so you are for or against moving inhertiance to FormInterface?
22:37:36 <NamelessCoder> it adds redundance, but not enough for me to be against it