If you use currentItemProvider with composite or or switchable fields, make sure that none of the inner field names clash with: - Other inner field names at the level where
currentItemProvider is used - Other field names one level up where the composite or switchable field is defined
That is, every field at every level must have a unique name. Otherwise, nodes sharing the same name could be resolved by multiple fields that use currentItemProvider, which means their content would be overwritten. | Code Block |
|---|
| language | yml |
|---|
| title | Example name conflict |
|---|
| collapse | true |
|---|
| form:
properties:
first_compositeField:
$type: compositeField
itemProvider:
$type: currentItemProvider
properties:
inner_simple: # duplicate name conflict
label: simple
$type: textField # first text
inner_simple2:
label: simple
$type: textField # second text
second_compositeField:
$type: compositeField
itemProvider:
$type: currentItemProvider
properties:
inner_simple: # duplicate name conflict
label: simple
$type: textField # fourth text - first text is now overwritten
inner_simple3:
label: simple
$type: textField # third text
# Using jcrChildNodeProvider with both composite fields would fix the name problem
properties:
first_compositeField:
properties:
inner_simple: # first text, no name conflict
inner_simple2: # second text
second_compositeField:
properties:
inner_simple: # fourth text, no name conflict
inner_simple3: # third text |
|