fix(ui): skip disabled fields when adding OR filter conditions in list view #13004
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
PatrikKozak requested review from AlessioGr, JarrodMFlesch and jacobsfletch as code owners 
paulpopus approved these changes Jul 1, 2025
Contributor
| 🚀 This is included in version v3.45.0 |
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed. Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes. Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch. Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported. You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion. Outdated suggestions cannot be applied. This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved. Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews. Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge. Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What?
Fixes a bug where adding an additional OR filter condition in the list view selects a field with
admin.disableListFilter: true, causing all filter fields to appear disabled.Why?
When the first field in a collection has
disableListFilterset totrue, adding a second OR condition defaults to using that field. This leads to a broken filter UI where no valid fields are selectable.How?
Replaces the hardcoded usage of
reducedFields[0]with a call toreducedFields.find(...)that skips fields withdisableListFilter: true, consistent with the logic already used when adding the first filter condition.Fixes #12993