Partial fix CSS Templates with same name show as if included

[Russ]

Possibly intentional... and possibly posted before, but it just seems inconsistent to me unless I'm looking past something.



This screenshot shows custom_footer.css as if it's being called already via customer_footer, however it's clearly not. Any template in which you have the same name for the CSS template will do this.

Just seems like the "customer_footer.css" shouldn't be showing unless I actually require the template.

 

[Steve F]

Confirmed

If it is intentional, it makes one think the template is included automatically until you realize it doesn't load the css

 

[0xym0r0n]

Yep I've noticed this but I kinda like it since I usually associate the two.

 

[Russ]

Yep I've noticed this but I kinda like it since I usually associate the two.

Same, it's nice however I think it should auto-require the CSS or just not show the tab, not tease us

 

[Mike]

It was intentional. I think it's mostly for the CSS that is always included, but this is an edge case -- I think header is the only one missing an edithint for header.css. I agree it can be misleading.

As such, I've removed this behavior.

 

[Mike]

Hmm actually, I just realized the other situation is for loading "tertiary" templates.

For example, when you open PAGE_CONTAINER, it loads all the templates included in it (like header), but it doesn't analyze those templates. It does, however, automatically load corresponding CSS templates (header.css).

Not sure I want to remove that advantage...

 

[Russ]

Hmm actually, I just realized the other situation is for loading "tertiary" templates.

For example, when you open PAGE_CONTAINER, it loads all the templates included in it (like header), but it doesn't analyze those templates. It does, however, automatically load corresponding CSS templates (header.css).

Not sure I want to remove that advantage...

I'd prefer it to stay then , I think this is the first time it's ever been brought up on the forums that I could find, so wouldn't want to remove that advantage.

 

[Jon W]

Wouldn't the solution be to always include CSS templates with the same name if they exist and not have to explicitly include a <xen:require> tag?

 

[Mike]

Wouldn't the solution be to always include CSS templates with the same name if they exist and not have to explicitly include a <xen:require> tag?

Sort of, but it's not really feasible to detect that in the short term.

I'm making a small tweak here, but I'm mostly keeping the automated behavior when getting second level templates. For the primary template, we no longer automatically appear to include the CSS template.