Bug 29218

Summary: "hidden" class is not working for DT if column visibility button is used
Product: Koha Reporter: Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart>
Component: Architecture, internals, and plumbingAssignee: Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart>
Status: CLOSED FIXED QA Contact: Testopia <testopia>
Severity: normal    
Priority: P5 - low CC: fridolin.somers, kyle, martin.renvoize
Version: unspecified   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
Change sponsored?: --- Patch complexity: ---
Documentation contact: Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:
21.11.00,21.05.05
Bug Depends on: 28349    
Bug Blocks: 28859    
Attachments: Bug 29218: Rename .hidden class for DT visibility
Bug 29218: Rename .hidden class for DT visibility

Description Jonathan Druart 2021-10-13 08:20:54 UTC
.hidden get the CSS that interferes with DT behaviour

.hidden {
    display: none !important;
}
Comment 1 Jonathan Druart 2021-10-13 08:23:21 UTC
Created attachment 126145 [details] [review]
Bug 29218: Rename .hidden class for DT visibility

.hidden get the CSS that interferes with DT behaviour

.hidden {
    display: none !important;
}

Test this patch with bug 28859.
Comment 2 Martin Renvoize 2021-10-28 08:26:30 UTC
Created attachment 127029 [details] [review]
Bug 29218: Rename .hidden class for DT visibility

.hidden get the CSS that interferes with DT behaviour

.hidden {
    display: none !important;
}

Test this patch with bug 28859.

Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com>
Comment 3 Martin Renvoize 2021-10-28 08:29:43 UTC
No further cases of 'hidden' classes found on DT the fields.  Works as expected and is a clean fix.

Going straight for PQA
Comment 4 Jonathan Druart 2021-10-28 10:29:57 UTC
Pushed to master for 21.11, thanks to everybody involved!
Comment 5 Kyle M Hall 2021-10-29 15:52:40 UTC
Pushed to 21.05.x for 21.05.05
Comment 6 Fridolin Somers 2021-11-10 23:50:03 UTC
(In reply to Kyle M Hall from comment #5)
> Pushed to 21.05.x for 21.05.05

Oh, depends on 28349 that is not in 21.05.x
Is it still correct to backport it ?
Comment 7 Jonathan Druart 2021-11-15 08:20:29 UTC
(In reply to Fridolin Somers from comment #6)
> (In reply to Kyle M Hall from comment #5)
> > Pushed to 21.05.x for 21.05.05
> 
> Oh, depends on 28349 that is not in 21.05.x
> Is it still correct to backport it ?

Yes, but you should backport bug 28349.