Open jacksleight opened 1 year ago
On second thought I guess that wouldn't work as you'd be adding sections to sections then, unless there's a clever way to solve that.
Maybe using the section fieldtype is still the best approach when using fieldsets?
Yeah a little oversight.
I could see letting you create sections in a fieldset, and then in the blueprint you could import it at the top level, as a sibling to sections.
If you were to import it within a blueprint section, it could flatten all the fieldset's fields so you don't end up with nested sections.
For example, take this fieldset:
Fieldset
Section A
- Field One
- Field Two
Section B
- Field Three
I could see letting you create sections in a fieldset, and then in the blueprint you could import it at the top level, as a sibling to sections. If you were to import it within a blueprint section, it could flatten all the fieldset's fields so you don't end up with nested sections.
Oh yeah that would be great, best of both worlds then!
It'd be great if you could create sections inside fieldsets. One use case is defining a set of SEO fields along with a section title and description all in one place, and then importing the whole thing into multiple blueprints.
Until now I've used the section fieldtype at the top of a fieldset, and that still works. But I get the impression the idea is to migrate from the section fieldtype to sections now they exist (and also the styling doesn't match so it looks a bit off alongside actual sections).