CiviCRM Core issueshttps://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues2023-08-24T14:00:38Zhttps://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4517Show a message to let event registrants know that additional participants wil...2023-08-24T14:00:38ZlarsssandergreenShow a message to let event registrants know that additional participants will receive an email confirming their registrationWhen you register additional participants for an event and enter an email for those additional participants, an email confirmation is sent to the additional participants' emails. We should include text on the additional participants scre...When you register additional participants for an event and enter an email for those additional participants, an email confirmation is sent to the additional participants' emails. We should include text on the additional participants screen indicating that this confirmation email will be sent when there is an email field on the page, something like:
"An email confirming registration will be sent to the email address provided below."https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4516Rethinking 20 minutes QF session timeouts2023-10-05T15:27:38ZJonGoldRethinking 20 minutes QF session timeoutsThe 20 minute timeout has been a part of Civi for as long as I can remember. It's also caused lost donations, frustrated applicants, and so on. Reading an [article about why short session timeouts aren't helpful](https://www.sjoerdlang...The 20 minute timeout has been a part of Civi for as long as I can remember. It's also caused lost donations, frustrated applicants, and so on. Reading an [article about why short session timeouts aren't helpful](https://www.sjoerdlangkemper.nl/2023/08/16/session-timeout/) made me think about this for Civi.
* What is the original reason? Is it still valid?
* If we lengthen the timeout, do we need to make special arrangements around event registration when there's a maximum number of seats available?https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4511Allow multiple 'Added By' for an activity2023-09-08T20:35:49ZyashodhaAllow multiple 'Added By' for an activityThe way some clients are using the CRM, the 'Added By' person(s) is/are really the person(s) responsible for making the activity happen, and the 'Assigned To' are people that participate in the activity but are not directly responsible f...The way some clients are using the CRM, the 'Added By' person(s) is/are really the person(s) responsible for making the activity happen, and the 'Assigned To' are people that participate in the activity but are not directly responsible for it.
The issues is that the CRM only allows ONE Added By, so they rely on some custom contact reference fields 'Partnered With' to supplement the Added By. But this is not a good solution and has many limitations e,g not being able to see the activity in Partner tab etc.
Therefore the best way to move forward is to allow multiple 'Added By' for an activity. The database schema already allows for that with the _activity_contact_ table.
From technical perspective, I reckon it was an oversight to not allow multiple contacts for Contact Source as we had moved civicrm_activity.source_contact_id (single), civicrm_activity_target.contact_id, civicrm_activity_assignee.contact_id (dropped civicrm_activity_target/civicrm_activity_assignee tables) in favor of civicrm_activity_contact table.
Screens that need to be modified:
- Activity tab in the Contact screen
- Activity View screen
- Activity Edit screen
- Activities reports
- Activities resultyashodhayashodhahttps://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4496Event template fix-ups2023-08-17T14:18:50ZeileenEvent template fix-upsGenerally the goal is to make event templates not dependent on the form layer (using tokens & the MessageTemplate harness)
I'm creating this tracking issue to load up some screen shots for comparisonsGenerally the goal is to make event templates not dependent on the form layer (using tokens & the MessageTemplate harness)
I'm creating this tracking issue to load up some screen shots for comparisonshttps://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4493Support for Note entity available in FormBuilder2023-08-24T16:19:13ZbrienneSupport for Note entity available in FormBuilderOverview
----------------------------------------
In continuing to expand FormBuilder's use cases, it would be great to support the Note entity on afforms, so that users can have a place to enter text without having to create a custom fi...Overview
----------------------------------------
In continuing to expand FormBuilder's use cases, it would be great to support the Note entity on afforms, so that users can have a place to enter text without having to create a custom field on the entity to which they want to stick a note.
Example use-case
----------------------------------------
1. A form for users to create a new contact and add a note about them, which may not fit into a specific (or reusable) custom field
Current behaviour
----------------------------------------
The Note entity is not currently available to add to an afform.
Proposed behaviour
----------------------------------------
A Note entity could be added in FormBuilder and configured so that the back end user can select the `entity_table` that the Note is associated with.https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4491Document - Modifying Afform Editor UI2023-08-17T14:17:17ZseamusleeDocument - Modifying Afform Editor UIInspired by Kevin's comments here https://chat.civicrm.org/civicrm/pl/86tae1m6ijfiuf7ejewi9q8wxo It made me think about if I was doing an email submission handling as an extension how I would go about it
We already have the afformSubmis...Inspired by Kevin's comments here https://chat.civicrm.org/civicrm/pl/86tae1m6ijfiuf7ejewi9q8wxo It made me think about if I was doing an email submission handling as an extension how I would go about it
We already have the afformSubmission event which can be used to trigger the sending of the email. However I would imagine end users would want some level of customisations on a per form basis, e.g. the to email address, The email body, the subject line and maybe the from email address. What I don't know is if we have good documentation about how to modify the afform editor interface to include such fields that can then be stored somewhere sensible and I don't know where that storage would be either.
I figure we should have some documentation here as to the correct way to do this as others may want to add their own submission events on e.g. posting to a zapier end point or maybe throwing a webhook somewhere right?colemanwcolemanwhttps://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4490Feature request - Queue api should respect maintenance mode2023-09-20T02:39:21ZeileenFeature request - Queue api should respect maintenance modeProposal to add a maintenance mode setting that is respected by the Queue api such that it would not permit `claimItems` while this setting is enabled - except for possibly upgrade tasks?
Note that when coworker respects this it should ...Proposal to add a maintenance mode setting that is respected by the Queue api such that it would not permit `claimItems` while this setting is enabled - except for possibly upgrade tasks?
Note that when coworker respects this it should log a message with a priority of `warning` so that a sysadmin can see that although the process is running no tasks are.
Chat discussion to date https://chat.civicrm.org/civicrm/pl/9h93yabz33g17qa3apcet8irdy
The summary of the chat is that `claimItem` api should be the place where maintenance mode is checked & heeded. This would be for 'persistent queues' - ie `CRM_Queue_Queue_Memory` would not check it.
- [ ] The claim item/s functions should call a symfony listener - returning false in this piece of code if an external listener (threshold check) sets the status to false
- [ ] we should add a setting for Maintenance mode (keep it simple) - call it `queue_maintenance_mode`? ClaimItem should return FALSE if this is TRUE
**Notes**
1) the following query will determine whether all queues have finished once maintenance mode is enabled:
`SELECT * FROM civicrm_queue_item where release_time > NOW()`
If future scheduling is in use (civi-rules?) then this might not suffice and if that ever arises as a feature someone wants to work on they could add a suitable field to the `civicrm_queue_item` table (`is_future_scheduled` ?)
2) I can't recall what we decided re should claimItems support an override - ie if you took everything else down in order to keep one queue running & want that queue to still claim items.... perhaps I'll find ithttps://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4489FormBuilder UX general improvements2023-08-17T14:15:48ZbrienneFormBuilder UX general improvementsOverview
----------------------------------------
This feature request stems from the monthly FormBuilder meeting and some product research of other form building tools, such as Webform (Drupal) and WPForms (WordPress).
Current behavio...Overview
----------------------------------------
This feature request stems from the monthly FormBuilder meeting and some product research of other form building tools, such as Webform (Drupal) and WPForms (WordPress).
Current behaviour
----------------------------------------
There are several aspects of the FormBuilder UI that are not as user friendly as they could be. Taking on the UI overall is quite a big project, but it can be parsed into smaller portions that can be easier to tackle, such as making the listing of Entities span the width of the screen so that the user has more real estate to see what they've added to the form.
Proposed behaviour
----------------------------------------
I've created a [wireframe](https://briennekordis957225.invisionapp.com/freehand/FormBuilder-gEujDK3pw?dsid_h=9f8d5b19659b2874dcac52af00d939a53fd8db4d67516799d42d559da618ca25&uid_h=02b042cff858bbdbc3946e1968bcbe6a1445c788c050f33252bf8876878fb775) with some ideas the meld an improved design of FormBuilder's current layout with some of the better features of WebForm and WPForms.
![Selection_016](/uploads/8994c626ba5ad0f628dd42cc7417a2f6/Selection_016.png)
![Selection_017](/uploads/790e8de4193c486023eaeed94c073994/Selection_017.png)
![Selection_018](/uploads/6ef75e5b76588b89dadc36722603e5c2/Selection_018.png)https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4475Feature request: Searchkit – Add Contains one off2023-08-09T19:47:06ZdavidFeature request: Searchkit – Add Contains one offOverview
----------------------------------------
PleaseFiltering for e.g. multiply participant roles is complicated and look not very nice compared to filtering for a participant status. The way the filtering of the two fields works is ...Overview
----------------------------------------
PleaseFiltering for e.g. multiply participant roles is complicated and look not very nice compared to filtering for a participant status. The way the filtering of the two fields works is completely different. In contrast, the selection (in the backend form participant) of role and status is very similar, both are set in a selection field. For search it should be also as same as possible.
Example use-case
![grafik](/uploads/3c6e273b903997ec94e4fa9d3454febb/grafik.png)
Until 5.63 I used “is one of”, what is not longer available for participant role. (what is ok, because it is not working 100%, how I learned here: https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/1321#note_58735
Proposed behaviour
----------------------------------------
Feature request:
Is it possible to integrate a “contains on of” operator?
Is it possible to change “contains” to allows multiple values?
So it would be the same look and feel like “is one of”, what is much easier than using or/and groups and it would also fit to the data input for backend users, to have only one field to search.
Comments
----------------------------------------
I played a little bit around. If I loop throw the values in Api4SelectQuery->createSQLClause and connecting the singe pattern with or / and, it seems to work in seachrkit for participant role, but I am not skilled enough to implement finally and to understand the consequence.
```
protected function createSQLClause($fieldAlias, $operator, $value, $field, int $depth) {
//...
if ($operator === "CONTAINS" || $operator === "NOT CONTAINS" || $operator === "CONTAINS ONE OF" || $operator === "NOT CONTAINS ONE OF") {
if ($operator === "CONTAINS ONE OF") {
$operator = "CONTAINS";
$binding = " OR ";
} else if ($operator === "NOT CONTAINS ONE OF") {
$operator = "NOT CONTAINS";
$binding = " OR ";
} else {
$binding = " AND ";
}
if (is_array($value)) {
$querString = "";
foreach ($value as $v) {
if ($querString !== "") {
$querString .= $binding;
}
$querString .= $this->createSQLClause($fieldAlias, $operator, $v, $field, $depth);
}
return $querString;
}
//...
}
```https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4471`updateRelatedMemberships` does not fire "pre" and "post" hooks2023-08-07T12:12:48Zmasetto`updateRelatedMemberships` does not fire "pre" and "post" hooksThe method `updateRelatedMemberships` in file `CRM/Member/BAO/Membership.php` does not call "pre" and "post" hooks. Is it a bug or is it intentional
This is the function:
```php
public static function updateRelatedMemberships($ownerMe...The method `updateRelatedMemberships` in file `CRM/Member/BAO/Membership.php` does not call "pre" and "post" hooks. Is it a bug or is it intentional
This is the function:
```php
public static function updateRelatedMemberships($ownerMembershipId, $params) {
$membership = new CRM_Member_DAO_Membership();
$membership->owner_membership_id = $ownerMembershipId;
$membership->find();
while ($membership->fetch()) {
$relatedMembership = new CRM_Member_DAO_Membership();
$relatedMembership->id = $membership->id;
$relatedMembership->copyValues($params);
$relatedMembership->save();
}
}
```
The effect is, because I'm using the `hook_civicrm_post` hook, I don't have the update hook of related memberships.
I propose to change it as:
```php
public static function updateRelatedMemberships($ownerMembershipId, $params) {
$membership = new CRM_Member_DAO_Membership();
$membership->owner_membership_id = $ownerMembershipId;
$membership->find();
while ($membership->fetch()) {
CRM_Utils_Hook::pre('edit', 'Membership', $membership->id, $params);
$relatedMembership = new CRM_Member_DAO_Membership();
$relatedMembership->id = $membership->id;
$relatedMembership->copyValues($params);
$relatedMembership->save();
CRM_Utils_Hook::post('edit', 'Membership', $membership->id, $relatedMembership);
}
}
```https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4464Authentication tokens: session already active - different user2023-08-04T12:51:21Zaydunsaidan.saunders@squiffle.ukAuthentication tokens: session already active - different userOverview
----------------------------------------
See #4463 and https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4462 This improvement issue relates to handling the case where the new user is different to that of the existing session.
From [t...Overview
----------------------------------------
See #4463 and https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4462 This improvement issue relates to handling the case where the new user is different to that of the existing session.
From [this chat](https://chat.civicrm.org/civicrm/pl/n4cr3jownifexnjda3k45qhura):
@totten says:
- if the active session is same user, then no problems. just proceed.
- if the active session user differs from the requested user, then you kinda have to choose between:
- killing the old session and starting a new one
- changing the userID of the live session. (but then you're liable to leak session-data in hard-to-predict ways)
- aborting the request
For the already active session with different user - I think it would be ideal to show a prompt and confirm that they want to logout/switch-user.https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4462Transactional Authentication (Page-level auth tokens)2024-03-01T19:59:17Zaydunsaidan.saunders@squiffle.ukTransactional Authentication (Page-level auth tokens)Overview
----------------------------------------
Improve the support for transactional approaches in the authentication framework. The current implementation of authentication tokens is more suited to a portal approach than a transacti...Overview
----------------------------------------
Improve the support for transactional approaches in the authentication framework. The current implementation of authentication tokens is more suited to a portal approach than a transactional one.
See [this snippet](https://lab.civicrm.org/-/snippets/92 ) for the background describing how to use authenticated links with forms. This documents the resulting conversation with @totten [here](https://chat.civicrm.org/civicrm/pl/trubx7xwui878nsz3w6ujmf6oc):
(@totten says:) I'd like some language to describe two ways of approaching customized UX for constituents.
- Hypothetical scenario
- You send an email 12 months after a prior donation. You thank the donor for the previous contribution. The message includes some links to update communication preferences, browse past donations, or make a new donation.
- UX Approaches
1. **Transactional Approach / One form at a time / Strict Pageflow / Page-Level Auth**: The email has 3x hyperlinks. Each goes to different form/page. Each link has diff auth code (which confers access to exactly one form).
2. **Portal Approach / Multiple forms at discretion / Open Pageflow / Session-Level Auth**: The email has 3x hyperlinks. All go to pages within the same portal. The user opens the first page which takes their interest. On that page, there are more links (eg via prose or navbar) to go checkout the others.
I don't know a good/simple way to say that one is better than the other. but they are different. I suspect there's some Venn diagram of organizational-scenarios (some better suited to 1; some to 2; some to either 1 or 2)
The current auth-code mechanism is better for "Portal Approach/Open Pageflow" -- and it's worse for Transactional Approach/Strict Pageflow"
(that's not b/c "Open Pageflow" is better -- but at the time of its writing, it was the easier one to support)
From a low-level POV, the auth-codes for them would differ like this:
- For portal/open pageflow, it generates this token -- which is basically a login-token
- -The custom forms use "Role-based" security-(Maybe either security model is ok in this context...)
- For transactional/strict pageflow, you might expect...
- It needs a fine-grained token like this (pseudocode)
```
$bearerToken = "Bearer " . $jwt->encode([
'exp' => $expires,
'sub' => "cid:" . $contactId,
'scope' => 'api4',
'api4.whitelist' => [
['Afform', 'prefill', ['name' =>'xyz']],
['Afform', 'submit', ['name' =>'xyz']],
]);
```
- In PHP, need a mechanism to accept those tokens
- In JS/HTML, need a mechanism to relay that token
- The custom forms use "Form-based" security
See also
--------
- #4463: Authentication tokens: session already active - same user
- #4464: Authentication tokens: session already active - different userhttps://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4460Feature request: Force recurring-only2023-08-11T06:35:18ZMariaVFeature request: Force recurring-onlyI would like to propose a feature for contribution pages.
There is already an [extension (ca.civicrm.contributionrecur)](https://github.com/adixon/ca.civicrm.contributionrecur/) with this feature (and a lot more) but unfortunately it do...I would like to propose a feature for contribution pages.
There is already an [extension (ca.civicrm.contributionrecur)](https://github.com/adixon/ca.civicrm.contributionrecur/) with this feature (and a lot more) but unfortunately it does not work properly anymore.
It is possible to force recurring payments only - which is very useful for i.e. membership pages.
When this option is selected, it is not possible to uncheck the checkbox:
![image](/uploads/d3898e4c576b669018029e7b4da3cb08/image.png)https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4448SearchKit HAVING clause does not support relative dates.2023-08-03T12:45:52ZTony Maynard-SmithSearchKit HAVING clause does not support relative dates.## Overview
SearchKit WHERE clauses on a Date field provide a facility for comparing with a relative date, e.g. "\< Before Now 12 Months". The HAVING clause does not, but I am suggesting that it should.
## Example use-case
1. SearchK...## Overview
SearchKit WHERE clauses on a Date field provide a facility for comparing with a relative date, e.g. "\< Before Now 12 Months". The HAVING clause does not, but I am suggesting that it should.
## Example use-case
1. SearchKit search to select Contacts who have not participated in an Event for the last 12 months. Also applies to Activities, Memberships, etc.
## Current behaviour
Can construct a HAVING clause to compare e.g. a MAX Date field with a literal date, but not with a relative date as for a WHERE clause.
## Proposed behaviour
Relative dates should be provided for HAVING as well as WHERE clauses. This is much more user friendly for a packaged search than having to edit the search definition in SearchKit each time.
## Comments
_Anything else you would like the reviewer to note._https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4422Is there any reason to save both html and text versions of Inbound Emails?2023-07-13T17:33:27ZlarsssandergreenIs there any reason to save both html and text versions of Inbound Emails?For Email-to-Activity processing, when the email being processed has both html and text versions, both are saved to the details for the activity using the `-ALTERNATIVE ITEM 0-` ... `-ALTERNATIVE ITEM 1-` delimiters (depending on the det...For Email-to-Activity processing, when the email being processed has both html and text versions, both are saved to the details for the activity using the `-ALTERNATIVE ITEM 0-` ... `-ALTERNATIVE ITEM 1-` delimiters (depending on the details of the email, sometimes it seems to fail to recognize that both are present). This is handled while viewing activities (you only get the first version, which is not ideal as it is often the text version), but not in SearchKit.
I don't see any reason to keep two versions of the same email, so my proposal is just to keep the html version if both are present. Simple is better here unless there is some use case for having both.
If there is a need for the text version, perhaps we could add a setting for the mail account that would select text or html if both are present.https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4420crmDate support for Date Preferences2023-07-10T06:21:42ZlarsssandergreencrmDate support for Date Preferences[crmDate](https://github.com/civicrm/civicrm-core/blob/master/CRM/Core/Smarty/plugins/modifier.crmDate.php) only supports Date Formats, not the confusingly separate Date Preferences, which include creditCard format. It would be nice to b...[crmDate](https://github.com/civicrm/civicrm-core/blob/master/CRM/Core/Smarty/plugins/modifier.crmDate.php) only supports Date Formats, not the confusingly separate Date Preferences, which include creditCard format. It would be nice to be able to use `crmDate:'creditCard'` on Contribution Page Review and Thank You pages, etc.
Or maybe we should use tokens for credit_card_expiration_date instead, @DaveD thinks they support the Preferences.https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4412Add something like API 3 Attachments to API 42023-07-06T06:35:00ZlarsssandergreenAdd something like API 3 Attachments to API 4We can't get the full URL for a file from API 4 File and there is no API 4 Attachments, so API 3 must be used — which seems like a significant gap.
Thought this was worth noting as it has come up [twice](https://civicrm.stackexchange.co...We can't get the full URL for a file from API 4 File and there is no API 4 Attachments, so API 3 must be used — which seems like a significant gap.
Thought this was worth noting as it has come up [twice](https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/questions/45209/get-uploaded-file-full-url-via-api-v4/45210) on [SE](https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/questions/45179/civi-crm-apiv4-image-retrieval) recently.https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4406SearchKit: make 'inplace edit' conditional2023-07-09T03:06:31Zaydunsaidan.saunders@squiffle.ukSearchKit: make 'inplace edit' conditionalSuggestion: apply conditional rules (like those on the `Style` option) to `In-place edit`
Use case:
On a listing of Participant Status Types, we want to enable in-place edit if the type is not `Reserved`Suggestion: apply conditional rules (like those on the `Style` option) to `In-place edit`
Use case:
On a listing of Participant Status Types, we want to enable in-place edit if the type is not `Reserved`colemanwcolemanwhttps://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4404Possibility to reuse the list of languages available for "Preferred language"2023-07-06T06:36:35ZquimgilPossibility to reuse the list of languages available for "Preferred language"Overview
----------------------------------------
Out of the box, CiviCRM comes with a full list of languages used for the field "Preferred language". Right now, there is no way to reuse this list in custom fields. Admins must create the...Overview
----------------------------------------
Out of the box, CiviCRM comes with a full list of languages used for the field "Preferred language". Right now, there is no way to reuse this list in custom fields. Admins must create their own list of languages manually or use different unsupported approaches to reuse the one CiviCRM already has.
Example use-case
----------------------------------------
An international organization working with volunteers wants to know in which languages they have basic, advanced, and native/professional fluency, in separate questions.
Current behaviour
----------------------------------------
The list of languages available in CiviCRM's database cannot be reused for custom fields.
Proposed behaviour
----------------------------------------
Make the "Preferred language" list of languages available to custom fields, just like you can create any list that is then available to other custom fields.
Comments
----------------------------------------
See examples of ad hoc solutions admins are recurring to on https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/questions/6604/how-to-reuse-preferred-language-selecthttps://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/4389Can't import using contact id2023-08-03T12:40:09Zaydunsaidan.saunders@squiffle.ukCan't import using contact idOverview
----------------------------------------
`Contact id` cannot be selected as a field to match on when importing.
(I'm fairly certain this used to work, but don't know when it stopped.)
Reproduction steps
-----------------------...Overview
----------------------------------------
`Contact id` cannot be selected as a field to match on when importing.
(I'm fairly certain this used to work, but don't know when it stopped.)
Reproduction steps
----------------------------------------
1. Click on **Contacts -> Import Contacts**.
1. Upload a CSV with a 'contact id' column
1. Note that there is no option to select 'Contact ID' in the field mapping options.
Current behaviour
----------------------------------------
Can't match to existing contact using contact id.
Expected behaviour
----------------------------------------
Can match to existing contact using contact id.
Environment information
----------------------------------------
* __CiviCRM:__ master_ <!-- If this problem relates to an upgrade, then specify both old and new versions -->
Comments
----------------------------------------