Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated #6385

Closed
#6443
Closed
Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated#6385
#6443
Assignees
jesseleite

Description

@jesseleite
jesseleite
opened on Jul 27, 2022

Bug description

As reported by @aerni here #6348 (comment), we found that revealer handling could be improved when multiple conditions are being evaluated.

How to reproduce

  1. Setup a blueprint with the following fields:
-
handle: button_typefield:
display: 'Button Type'type: selectoptions:
entry: nullasset: nullmultiple: false
-
handle: more_settingsfield:
display: 'More Settings'type: revealermode: toggle
-
handle: download_assetfield:
display: 'Download Asset'type: toggleif:
button_type: 'equals asset'more_settings: 'equals true'default: true
-
handle: entry_urlfield:
display: 'Entry Url'type: textif:
button_type: 'equals entry'more_settings: 'equals true'default: 'http://someurl.com'
  1. When saving an entry without selecting a button_type, neither download_asset or entry_url values should be saved, but they are. The reason for this is because any time a field is hidden via a revealer, data flow behaviour changes to always submit those hidden-by-revealer fields.

The solution?

In situations where multiple field conditions are set on a field, we should probably ensure revealer-hidden field values are only submitted and saved if the revealer condition is the ONLY condition responsible for hiding the field. As soon as another field condition is hiding the field (ie. the above button_type condition), then that condition should probably take precedence when it comes to preventing data-flow on save.

Environment

StatamicVersion: 3.3.24

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

No labels
No labels

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions

    , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all 
     blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

    Skip to content
    Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated #6385
    Closed
    #6443
    Closed
    Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated#6385
    #6443
    Assignees
    jesseleite
    Description
    @jesseleite
    jesseleite
    opened on Jul 27, 2022
    Bug description
    As reported by @aerni here #6348 (comment), we found that revealer handling could be improved when multiple conditions are being evaluated.
    How to reproduce
    1. Setup a blueprint with the following fields:
    -
handle: button_typefield:
display: 'Button Type'type: selectoptions:
entry: nullasset: nullmultiple: false
-
handle: more_settingsfield:
display: 'More Settings'type: revealermode: toggle
-
handle: download_assetfield:
display: 'Download Asset'type: toggleif:
button_type: 'equals asset'more_settings: 'equals true'default: true
-
handle: entry_urlfield:
display: 'Entry Url'type: textif:
button_type: 'equals entry'more_settings: 'equals true'default: 'http://someurl.com'
    1. When saving an entry without selecting a button_type, neither download_asset or entry_url values should be saved, but they are. The reason for this is because any time a field is hidden via a revealer, data flow behaviour changes to always submit those hidden-by-revealer fields.
    The solution?
    In situations where multiple field conditions are set on a field, we should probably ensure revealer-hidden field values are only submitted and saved if the revealer condition is the ONLY condition responsible for hiding the field. As soon as another field condition is hiding the field (ie. the above button_type condition), then that condition should probably take precedence when it comes to preventing data-flow on save.
    Environment
    StatamicVersion: 3.3.24
    Metadata
    Metadata
    Assignees
    Labels
    No labels
    No labels
    Type
    No type
    Projects
    No projects
      Milestone
      No milestone
      Relationships
      None yet
      Development
      No branches or pull requests
      Issue actions
      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

      Skip to content
      Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated #6385
      Closed
      #6443
      Closed
      Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated#6385
      #6443
      Assignees
      jesseleite
      Description
      @jesseleite
      jesseleite
      opened on Jul 27, 2022
      Bug description
      As reported by @aerni here #6348 (comment), we found that revealer handling could be improved when multiple conditions are being evaluated.
      How to reproduce
      1. Setup a blueprint with the following fields:
      -
handle: button_typefield:
display: 'Button Type'type: selectoptions:
entry: nullasset: nullmultiple: false
-
handle: more_settingsfield:
display: 'More Settings'type: revealermode: toggle
-
handle: download_assetfield:
display: 'Download Asset'type: toggleif:
button_type: 'equals asset'more_settings: 'equals true'default: true
-
handle: entry_urlfield:
display: 'Entry Url'type: textif:
button_type: 'equals entry'more_settings: 'equals true'default: 'http://someurl.com'
      1. When saving an entry without selecting a button_type, neither download_asset or entry_url values should be saved, but they are. The reason for this is because any time a field is hidden via a revealer, data flow behaviour changes to always submit those hidden-by-revealer fields.
      The solution?
      In situations where multiple field conditions are set on a field, we should probably ensure revealer-hidden field values are only submitted and saved if the revealer condition is the ONLY condition responsible for hiding the field. As soon as another field condition is hiding the field (ie. the above button_type condition), then that condition should probably take precedence when it comes to preventing data-flow on save.
      Environment
      StatamicVersion: 3.3.24
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      Labels
      No labels
      No labels
      Type
      No type
      Projects
      No projects
        Milestone
        No milestone
        Relationships
        None yet
        Development
        No branches or pull requests
        Issue actions
        
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

        Skip to content
        Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated #6385
        Closed
        #6443
        Closed
        Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated#6385
        #6443
        Assignees
        jesseleite
        Description
        @jesseleite
        jesseleite
        opened on Jul 27, 2022
        Bug description
        As reported by @aerni here #6348 (comment), we found that revealer handling could be improved when multiple conditions are being evaluated.
        How to reproduce
        1. Setup a blueprint with the following fields:
        -
handle: button_typefield:
display: 'Button Type'type: selectoptions:
entry: nullasset: nullmultiple: false
-
handle: more_settingsfield:
display: 'More Settings'type: revealermode: toggle
-
handle: download_assetfield:
display: 'Download Asset'type: toggleif:
button_type: 'equals asset'more_settings: 'equals true'default: true
-
handle: entry_urlfield:
display: 'Entry Url'type: textif:
button_type: 'equals entry'more_settings: 'equals true'default: 'http://someurl.com'
        1. When saving an entry without selecting a button_type, neither download_asset or entry_url values should be saved, but they are. The reason for this is because any time a field is hidden via a revealer, data flow behaviour changes to always submit those hidden-by-revealer fields.
        The solution?
        In situations where multiple field conditions are set on a field, we should probably ensure revealer-hidden field values are only submitted and saved if the revealer condition is the ONLY condition responsible for hiding the field. As soon as another field condition is hiding the field (ie. the above button_type condition), then that condition should probably take precedence when it comes to preventing data-flow on save.
        Environment
        StatamicVersion: 3.3.24
        Metadata
        Metadata
        Assignees
        Labels
        No labels
        No labels
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

          Skip to content
          Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated #6385
          Closed
          #6443
          Closed
          Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated#6385
          #6443
          Assignees
          jesseleite
          Description
          @jesseleite
          jesseleite
          opened on Jul 27, 2022
          Bug description
          As reported by @aerni here #6348 (comment), we found that revealer handling could be improved when multiple conditions are being evaluated.
          How to reproduce
          1. Setup a blueprint with the following fields:
          -
handle: button_typefield:
display: 'Button Type'type: selectoptions:
entry: nullasset: nullmultiple: false
-
handle: more_settingsfield:
display: 'More Settings'type: revealermode: toggle
-
handle: download_assetfield:
display: 'Download Asset'type: toggleif:
button_type: 'equals asset'more_settings: 'equals true'default: true
-
handle: entry_urlfield:
display: 'Entry Url'type: textif:
button_type: 'equals entry'more_settings: 'equals true'default: 'http://someurl.com'
          1. When saving an entry without selecting a button_type, neither download_asset or entry_url values should be saved, but they are. The reason for this is because any time a field is hidden via a revealer, data flow behaviour changes to always submit those hidden-by-revealer fields.
          The solution?
          In situations where multiple field conditions are set on a field, we should probably ensure revealer-hidden field values are only submitted and saved if the revealer condition is the ONLY condition responsible for hiding the field. As soon as another field condition is hiding the field (ie. the above button_type condition), then that condition should probably take precedence when it comes to preventing data-flow on save.
          Environment
          StatamicVersion: 3.3.24
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          Labels
          No labels
          No labels
          Type
          No type
          Projects
          No projects
            Milestone
            No milestone
            Relationships
            None yet
            Development
            No branches or pull requests
            Issue actions
            
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

            Skip to content
            Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated #6385
            Closed
            #6443
            Closed
            Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated#6385
            #6443
            Assignees
            jesseleite
            Description
            @jesseleite
            jesseleite
            opened on Jul 27, 2022
            Bug description
            As reported by @aerni here #6348 (comment), we found that revealer handling could be improved when multiple conditions are being evaluated.
            How to reproduce
            1. Setup a blueprint with the following fields:
            -
handle: button_typefield:
display: 'Button Type'type: selectoptions:
entry: nullasset: nullmultiple: false
-
handle: more_settingsfield:
display: 'More Settings'type: revealermode: toggle
-
handle: download_assetfield:
display: 'Download Asset'type: toggleif:
button_type: 'equals asset'more_settings: 'equals true'default: true
-
handle: entry_urlfield:
display: 'Entry Url'type: textif:
button_type: 'equals entry'more_settings: 'equals true'default: 'http://someurl.com'
            1. When saving an entry without selecting a button_type, neither download_asset or entry_url values should be saved, but they are. The reason for this is because any time a field is hidden via a revealer, data flow behaviour changes to always submit those hidden-by-revealer fields.
            The solution?
            In situations where multiple field conditions are set on a field, we should probably ensure revealer-hidden field values are only submitted and saved if the revealer condition is the ONLY condition responsible for hiding the field. As soon as another field condition is hiding the field (ie. the above button_type condition), then that condition should probably take precedence when it comes to preventing data-flow on save.
            Environment
            StatamicVersion: 3.3.24
            Metadata
            Metadata
            Assignees
            Labels
            No labels
            No labels
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

              Skip to content
              Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated #6385
              Closed
              #6443
              Closed
              Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated#6385
              #6443
              Assignees
              jesseleite
              Description
              @jesseleite
              jesseleite
              opened on Jul 27, 2022
              Bug description
              As reported by @aerni here #6348 (comment), we found that revealer handling could be improved when multiple conditions are being evaluated.
              How to reproduce
              1. Setup a blueprint with the following fields:
              -
handle: button_typefield:
display: 'Button Type'type: selectoptions:
entry: nullasset: nullmultiple: false
-
handle: more_settingsfield:
display: 'More Settings'type: revealermode: toggle
-
handle: download_assetfield:
display: 'Download Asset'type: toggleif:
button_type: 'equals asset'more_settings: 'equals true'default: true
-
handle: entry_urlfield:
display: 'Entry Url'type: textif:
button_type: 'equals entry'more_settings: 'equals true'default: 'http://someurl.com'
              1. When saving an entry without selecting a button_type, neither download_asset or entry_url values should be saved, but they are. The reason for this is because any time a field is hidden via a revealer, data flow behaviour changes to always submit those hidden-by-revealer fields.
              The solution?
              In situations where multiple field conditions are set on a field, we should probably ensure revealer-hidden field values are only submitted and saved if the revealer condition is the ONLY condition responsible for hiding the field. As soon as another field condition is hiding the field (ie. the above button_type condition), then that condition should probably take precedence when it comes to preventing data-flow on save.
              Environment
              StatamicVersion: 3.3.24
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              Labels
              No labels
              No labels
              Type
              No type
              Projects
              No projects
                Milestone
                No milestone
                Relationships
                None yet
                Development
                No branches or pull requests
                Issue actions
                
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

                Skip to content
                Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated #6385
                Closed
                #6443
                Closed
                Fix revealer handling when multiple field conditions are being evaluated#6385
                #6443
                Assignees
                jesseleite
                Description
                @jesseleite
                jesseleite
                opened on Jul 27, 2022
                Bug description
                As reported by @aerni here #6348 (comment), we found that revealer handling could be improved when multiple conditions are being evaluated.
                How to reproduce
                1. Setup a blueprint with the following fields:
                -
handle: button_typefield:
display: 'Button Type'type: selectoptions:
entry: nullasset: nullmultiple: false
-
handle: more_settingsfield:
display: 'More Settings'type: revealermode: toggle
-
handle: download_assetfield:
display: 'Download Asset'type: toggleif:
button_type: 'equals asset'more_settings: 'equals true'default: true
-
handle: entry_urlfield:
display: 'Entry Url'type: textif:
button_type: 'equals entry'more_settings: 'equals true'default: 'http://someurl.com'
                1. When saving an entry without selecting a button_type, neither download_asset or entry_url values should be saved, but they are. The reason for this is because any time a field is hidden via a revealer, data flow behaviour changes to always submit those hidden-by-revealer fields.
                The solution?
                In situations where multiple field conditions are set on a field, we should probably ensure revealer-hidden field values are only submitted and saved if the revealer condition is the ONLY condition responsible for hiding the field. As soon as another field condition is hiding the field (ie. the above button_type condition), then that condition should probably take precedence when it comes to preventing data-flow on save.
                Environment
                StatamicVersion: 3.3.24
                Metadata
                Metadata
                Assignees
                Labels
                No labels
                No labels
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions