Updates RiverLea (v1.80.11) - new version numbering, fixes hidden input regression, contact merge bg cols & others

[vingle]

Overview

Fixes important regression. Also restores older 1.x version numbering after issue with upgrade notices. In new system, second number is the Civi version it's been tested/built on, and third number is an incremental version number for releases against that (sorry for confusion)

Fixes hidden input regression, contact merge bg cols & others issues.

Before

RiverLea version 5.80.9

After

RiverLea version 1.80.11 (see note on version numbering)

Technical Details

• FIXED SIGNIFICANT REGRESSION - changed specificity of .hiddenElement (ext/riverlea/#11) to ensure unhidden elements are unhidden.
• FIXED - Wallbrook avatar image returned to 100px as had created a gap (ext/riverlea/#87)
• FIXED - Double icon on .messages.crm-empty-table
• CHANGED - version numbering again. See note in ReadMe: the 2nd number represents the Civi version tested against, the 3rd number is the RL version number for that Civi version.
• CHANGED - Alert colour bg for .messages.crm-empty-table now matches icon colour ('info' range)
• CHANGED - streams/empty/_variables.css to match core variables.css
• CHANGED - reduce verbose Bootstrap table styling css in tables.css
• CHANGED - cascade order of table colours to put .crm-row-selected class last
• ADDED - contact merge screen error/ok/selected background colours (ext/riverlea/#88) - see screengrab.
• ADDED - margin (--crm-flex-gap) to bottom of .description text.
• ADDED - accordion with error text and border colour to fix contrast ratio issues
• ADDED - D9 Claro .action-link margin reset

Comments

Changes to contact merge background colours seen across all four streams (using their default success/error/info colours):

[civibot]

🤖 Thank you for contributing to CiviCRM! ❤️ We will need to test and review this PR. 👷

Introduction for new contributors...

• If this is your first PR, an admin will greenlight automated testing with the command ok to test or add to whitelist.
• A series of tests will automatically run. You can see the results at the bottom of this page (if there are any problems, it will include a link to see what went wrong).
• A demo site will be built where anyone can try out a version of CiviCRM that includes your changes.
• If this process needs to be repeated, an admin will issue the command test this please to rerun tests and build a new demo site.
• Before this PR can be merged, it needs to be reviewed. Please keep in mind that reviewers are volunteers, and their response time can vary from a few hours to a few weeks depending on their availability and their knowledge of this particular part of CiviCRM.
• A great way to speed up this process is to "trade reviews" with someone - find an open PR that you feel able to review, and leave a comment like "I'm reviewing this now, could you please review mine?" (include a link to yours). You don't have to wait for a response to get started (and you don't have to stop at one!) the more you review, the faster this process goes for everyone 😄
• To ensure that you are credited properly in the final release notes, please add yourself to contributor-key.yml
• For more information about contributing, see CONTRIBUTING.md.

Quick links for reviewers...

• ➡️ PR Demo site (can be rebuilt with the command test this please).
• 📖 Review standards
• 🗒️ Review template (brief or verbose)

➡️ Online demo of this PR 🔗

[ufundo]

Tested this and confirmed this fixes the hiddenField regression for Price Fields (which also impacts creating Option Values for new Custom Fields).

The version number change is definite improvement too, no longer seeing alert to upgrade to the external version.

@vingle - just noting that at some point relatively soon it would be good to get into the practice of restricting PRs against the RC to regression fixes. There is a risk merging all the other changes in this PR a couple of days before release Wednesday leads to other regressions.

On the other hand, RL is still fast moving, so there's lots of other things you want to release ASAP; having different branches requires juggling those in your head, complicates the experience for testers, and involves more PR admin. So there is a risk/complication in not merging.

Also, RL is opt-in, so the blast radius of further regressions is relatively small.

On that basis I think "merge".

But I will hold back until EOD and cc @totten @eileenmcnaughton in case they have any alternate views.

[vingle]

Thanks @ufundo - my understanding from chats with @eileenmcnaughton was that RL would keep a WIP quality for a release or two. ie no blog announcing it's arrival for a month or two, just slowly encouraging more and more people to test it.

FWIW, whatever regressions might emerge, it still should be less buggy that Shoreditch - used in 1000s of live sites, but for front-end Civi, I think it's going to be a long road of testing as more variations and parent theme clashes emerge..

Longer run tho I agree this needs to change to a more formal process where regressions (ie hidden Field) go into the RC, and improvements (ie contact merge colours) goes into the next beta… when that change happens tho I'm not sure? (but in my understanding, not for 5.80)

[eileenmcnaughton]

@ufundo @vingle - I think it is correct for riverlea to still be fast moving. I would say I'm still OK with us being fast moving for the rest of 5.80 & 5.81 rc - although hopefully we are talking incremental fixes rather than major re-writes hitting the rcs & also with being pretty generous about what we backport from 5.81 to 5.80 stable once that is cut

[totten]

There are some bits of this that don't make sense to me -- but maybe it's because I've missed conversation in the past few weeks. I'm going to try catch-up and comment on riverlea#44.