Breaking: #102970 - No database relations in FlexForm container sections¶
See forge#102970
Description¶
FlexForm handling details can be troublesome in certain scenarios. The Core suffers from some nasty issues in this area, especially when relations to other tables are used in FlexForms - the system for instance tends to mix up things with language and workspace on this level.
The Core strives to get these scenarios sorted out, and a couple of patches to prepare towards better flex form handling have been done with v13.0 already.
To unblock further development in this area, one detail is restricted a bit more than with previous versions: FlexForm container section data structures must no longer contain fields that configure relations to other database tables.
This has already been restricted since TYPO3 v8 for TCA type="inline" and
has been partially extended to type="category" and others later, if they
configured MM relations in FlexForm sections containers. Now, especially
type="select" with foreign_table will also throw an exception.
In general, anonymous FlexForm container section data can and should not point to
database entities. Their use is tailored for "simple" types like input,
email and similar, support of those will not be restricted.
Note this does not restrict using casual FlexForms without containers sections,
like FlexForm data structures that rely on casual fields in sheets: Those can
continue to work with TCA types like inline, group and select,
and the Core development tries to actively fix existing problematic scenarios
in this area.
Impact¶
When editing records that configure FlexForms with container sections that use
database relation-aware TCA types, an exception will be thrown by
FormEngine. The related code may later be relocated to a lower level place
that can be triggered by DataHandler as well.
Affected installations¶
Instances with extensions that use FlexForm container sections configuring database relations to tables.
Since previous core versions restricted database relations within FlexForm container sections already, and since container sections are a relatively rarely used feature in the first place, we don't expect too many extensions to be affected by this.
You can easily spot custom usage of FlexForm sections by searching for a <section>
tag within your FlexForm .xml files, or within a TCA definition
with type="flex". These will be the instances you need to migrate,
when those sections contain type="select" fields (or others mentioned above).
Affected FlexForm XML¶
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<T3DataStructure>
<sheets>
<sSection>
<ROOT>
<sheetTitle>section</sheetTitle>
<type>array</type>
<el>
<section_1>
<title>section_1</title>
<type>array</type>
<!-- this is what to look out for: -->
<section>1</section>
<el>
<container_1>
<type>array</type>
<title>container_1</title>
<el>
<select_tree_1>
<label>select_tree_1 pages description</label>
<description>field description</description>
<config>
<type>select</type>
<renderType>selectTree</renderType>
<foreign_table>pages</foreign_table>
<foreign_table_where>ORDER BY pages.sorting</foreign_table_where>
<size>20</size>
<treeConfig>
<parentField>pid</parentField>
<appearance>
<expandAll>true</expandAll>
<showHeader>true</showHeader>
</appearance>
</treeConfig>
</config>
</select_tree_1>
</el>
</container_1>
</el>
</section_1>
</el>
</ROOT>
</sSection>
</sheets>
</T3DataStructure>Affected FlexForm TCA¶
[
'columns' => [
'flex_2' => [
'label' => 'flex section container',
'config' => [
'type' => 'flex',
'ds' => [
'default' => '
<T3DataStructure>
<sheets>
<sSection>
<ROOT>
<sheetTitle>section</sheetTitle>
<type>array</type>
<el>
<section_1>
<title>section_1</title>
<type>array</type>
<!-- this is what to look out for: -->
<section>1</section>
<el>
<container_1>
<type>array</type>
<title>container_1</title>
<el>
<select_tree_1>
<label>select_tree_1 pages description</label>
<description>field description</description>
<config>
<type>select</type>
<renderType>selectTree</renderType>
<foreign_table>pages</foreign_table>
<foreign_table_where>ORDER BY pages.sorting</foreign_table_where>
<size>20</size>
<treeConfig>
<parentField>pid</parentField>
<appearance>
<expandAll>true</expandAll>
<showHeader>true</showHeader>
</appearance>
</treeConfig>
</config>
</select_tree_1>
</el>
</container_1>
</el>
</section_1>
</el>
</ROOT>
</sSection>
</sheets>
</T3DataStructure>
',
],
],
],
],
]Migration¶
Some extensions tried to work around existing restrictions by switching from
type="inline" to type="group" or type="select", ending
up with the same problematic scenario.
The basic issue is still, that binding database entities to anonymous data structures is a problematic approach in the first place: A container section that can be repeated often, combined with the additional built-in feature to have multiple different sections at the same time, is close to impossible to manage in a way that does not easily destroy data integrity.
Extensions that rely on this feature need to get rid of this approach: It
typically means rewriting the extension to model relations using type="inline"
bound to database columns directly.