Skip to content

Afform: Only show PriceFieldValues that are active - #36417

Open
rbaugh wants to merge 1 commit into
civicrm:masterfrom
rbaugh:afform-pricefields
Open

Afform: Only show PriceFieldValues that are active#36417
rbaugh wants to merge 1 commit into
civicrm:masterfrom
rbaugh:afform-pricefields

Conversation

@rbaugh

@rbaugh rbaugh commented Aug 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Overview

Only show PriceFieldValue items that are set as public and are active. Allows for the use of the visibility_id field to control what values are presented on the form.

Before

All PriceFieldValue records for a PriceField are shown.

After

Only PriceFIeldValue items with visibility_id:name = 'public' and is_active = TRUE are shown on a form.

@civibot

civibot Bot commented Aug 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🤖 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.
PR commands & links...
  • /rebase <branch-name> will rebase your branch and change the base of the PR.
  • /squash will combine all commits (keeping only the first commit messsage).
  • /port <branch-name> will create a copy of this PR against a different branch.
  • /lintroll will automatically fix linting errors, amending commits as needed.
  • retest this please will rerun the tests and rebuild the demo site.
  • 📖 Review standards
  • 🗒️ Review template (brief or verbose)

➡️ Online demo of this PR 🔗

@civibot civibot Bot added the master label Aug 5, 2026
@mattwire

mattwire commented Aug 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rbaugh Completely agree with filtering on is_active=TRUE.

But not sure about filtering by visibility=public. What happens if you want to display admin-only fields to backend users? That's quite common, at least for events, where you have some public prices and then admins have some additional prices.

remove visibility
@rbaugh
rbaugh force-pushed the afform-pricefields branch from afdd7ef to 0378d6d Compare August 7, 2026 15:08
@rbaugh rbaugh changed the title Afform: Only show public PriceFieldValues that are active Afform: Only show PriceFieldValues that are active Aug 7, 2026
@rbaugh

rbaugh commented Aug 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@mattwire, I agree and had hesitation on adding the visibility_id filter in. But this seemed like a core leak of PriceFieldValue records when they were intended to be admin only.

I have remove the filter for this PR so that we are only excluding inactive items, and created #36434 to deal with the visibility_id issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants