You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In case of third party application, when it was updated last time?
For example: N/A
Describe your feature request
In the current filter template, line 14 checks if a filter is with the default BooleanFieldListFilter class, and if yes, apply the special horizontal styling.
However, it applies to the default BooleanFieldListFilter only. So when people like me want to customize it to display other options rather than "True" or "False" with a different class name such as "StatusBooleanFieldListFilter", it will display in the default vertical styling.
Suggesting to change it to {% if "BooleanFieldListFilter" in spec|class_name %}
so that as long as people name the inherited filter class with string BooleanFieldListFilter in, the styling would work.
Please see the attached screenshot.
Attaching my code snippet (use case) for reference.
Do you have any examples?
For example:
Is it a third party application feature request?
For example: No
In case of third party application, when it was updated last time?
For example: N/A
Describe your feature request
In the current filter template, line 14 checks if a filter is with the default BooleanFieldListFilter class, and if yes, apply the special horizontal styling.
However, it applies to the default BooleanFieldListFilter only. So when people like me want to customize it to display other options rather than "True" or "False" with a different class name such as "StatusBooleanFieldListFilter", it will display in the default vertical styling.
Suggesting to change it to
{% if "BooleanFieldListFilter" in spec|class_name %}
so that as long as people name the inherited filter class with string BooleanFieldListFilter in, the styling would work.
Please see the attached screenshot.
Attaching my code snippet (use case) for reference.
Please let me know if a PR is preferred. Happy to raise one.
Thanks in advance!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: