V15: Document Type Create Options #17669
Conversation
To extend, rather than reinvent the wheel.
…item` instead of `uui-ref-node`, so we can use `umb-icon` (with color support) and UI consistency.
Deprecates `umb-document-type-create-options-modal` and token.
- Document Type (default) - Document Type with Template - Element Type - Folder
| if (this.icon) { | ||
| const umbIcon = document.createElement('umb-icon'); | ||
| umbIcon.setAttribute('name', this.icon); | ||
| this.shadowRoot?.querySelector('#icon')?.replaceWith(umbIcon); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is a little dangerous,, cause what if something caused Lit to re-render.. then it would not be overriden any more..
Could you try to just add it as a direct child, not in the shadowRoot and then set the attribute slot='icon'?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It felt a bit hacky when I was developing that part. I did try a few other approaches, but I couldn't get the icon to display, the fallback icon kept being rendered.
For reference: https://github.com/umbraco/Umbraco.UI/blob/v1.12.2/packages/uui-ref-node/lib/uui-ref-node.element.ts#L109-L112
When you say "add it as a direct child", do you mean that it overrides the render() method? If so, I'm not quite sure how that would work.
I'm wondering if UUIRefNodeElement could have a protected renderIcon() method added to it, that may simplify this. 🤔
|
|
||
| @property({ type: String }) | ||
| detail = ''; | ||
| const elementName = 'umb-ref-item'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we agreed not to do this any longer? :-D
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought we agreed the opposite, that we would do this. 😂 I'm cool with reverting this, just let me know.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, well the idea is to get rid of it in time. so I would say yes, lets not add it in this PR. :-)
|
Hi @leekelleher really great refactoring, that is so nice to get aligned and make extendable. so thanks for that. I just skimmed the code of interest, so not because I'm reviewing per say, but I had two minor comments :-) |
|
Hi @leekelleher , It's fantastic to see that you have implemented the create options for Document Types. This is one of the more interesting cases! :D Based on the current state of your PR, I would appreciate it if we could address these areas to ensure maximum flexibility for extensions and at the same time decouple our own code more. I suggest we move all template logic from the Document Type into the "Template"-module. This means that if the template package is not installed, all related logic around Document Types with templates would be removed (headless cms):
As we work on these changes, we should also consider how to implement a solution that can be reused across all workspaces. We already have a snippet/preset functionality for Partials Views which could utilize the same system. |
Description
Creates an
entityCreateOptionActionextension for each of the Document Type create actions. This builds on the work started in umbraco/Umbraco.CMS.Backoffice#2509, and replaces the existing "Document Type Create Options modal" (which has hardcoded options).To align the UI/UX consistency for the existing Create Options, amends were required to the
<umb-ref-item>component, (refactored to extenduui-ref-noderather than duplicate code/functionality). This mostly meant updating existing usage to add theselect-onlyattribute.// @madsrasmussen Tagging you in, as you may wish to cast an eye on these amends.
How to test?
Go to the Settings section, try creating a new document type: