[PAGES-64] Ask a user where to add a new component, even if an area accepts just a single component type Created: 17/Mar/16  Updated: 11/Mar/21  Resolved: 11/Mar/21

Status: Closed
Project: Magnolia pages module
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Improvement Priority: Neutral
Reporter: Andreas Weder Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Workaround exists Votes: 1
Labels: None
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Issue Links:
causality
caused by PAGES-59 Allow to add components also at the t... Closed
caused by PAGES-58 Don't show component chooser if there... Closed
dependency
depends upon MGNLPN-346 CLONE - Magnolia saves the "position"... Closed
depends upon PAGES-96 Magnolia saves the "position" attribu... Closed
Template:
Acceptance criteria:
Empty
Task DoD:
[ ]* Doc/release notes changes? Comment present?
[ ]* Downstream builds green?
[ ]* Solution information and context easily available?
[ ]* Tests
[ ]* FixVersion filled and not yet released
[ ]  Architecture Decision Record (ADR)
Date of First Response:

 Description   

We should offer an option to force the "choose component" dialog to be shown, even if an area only accepts a single type of component, to still allow a user to specify if that component should be added at the top or the bottom of the list of components in that area.

We've recently made two improvements:

  • PAGES-59: when adding a new component, an editor may now specify if that component is added at the top or at the bottom of an area.
  • PAGES-58: we no longer ask the user to pick the type of component to add, if an area only accepts a single type of component anyway

While both are valid usability improvements, they can conflict with each other: if an area now only accepts a single component type, an editor may no longer choose to add that component at the top or the bottom. The goal of this issue is to fix that.



 Comments   
Comment by Espen Jervidalo [ 06/Oct/16 ]

Before considering this ticket we should fix PAGES-96. Storing the position in the node itself is wrong and hi-jacking the property "position" for this even wronger.

Comment by Bence Vass [ 19/Apr/17 ]

In the original issue (https://jira.magnolia-cms.com/browse/PAGES-59) this is stated:
"We consider configuring position of the placeholder(s) on the area definition"

Is this something that we can still expect?

Comment by Roman Kovařík [ 11/Mar/21 ]

Closing, the component can be still manually reordered.

Generated at Mon Feb 12 06:15:16 CET 2024 using Jira 9.4.2#940002-sha1:46d1a51de284217efdcb32434eab47a99af2938b.