bernhard

I have added a hook recorder and this is what I got when logging in with a non-existing email address: ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::execute ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::buildLoginForm ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::loginFormProcessReady ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::loginFailed ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::loginFormProcessed ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::renderLoginForm ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::headline ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::getLoginLinks ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::executed So to me it looks like loginFormProcessReady should work. This is the whole hook recorder log, which looks like InputfieldForm::processInput should also be an option? ProcessWire\Fields::load ProcessWire\Fieldgroups::load ProcessWire\Templates::load ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\Session::init ProcessWire\ProcessWire::init ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\FieldgroupsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldgroupsArray::changed ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\TemplatesArray::changed ProcessWire\TemplatesArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldgroupsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldgroupsArray::changed ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\TemplatesArray::changed ProcessWire\TemplatesArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldgroupsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldgroupsArray::changed ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\TemplatesArray::changed ProcessWire\TemplatesArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldgroupsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldgroupsArray::changed ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\TemplatesArray::changed ProcessWire\TemplatesArray::changed ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\FieldgroupsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldgroupsArray::changed ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\TemplatesArray::changed ProcessWire\TemplatesArray::changed ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\UserPage::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\ProcessPageView::execute ProcessWire\PagesRequest::getPage ProcessWire\PagesRequest::getPageForUser ProcessWire\DefaultPage::viewable ProcessWire\PagesRequest::getLoginPageOrUrl ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\ProcessPageView::ready ProcessWire\ProcessWire::ready ProcessWire\Config::InputfieldWrapper ProcessWire\Config::callUnknown ProcessWire\JqueryUI::use ProcessWire\PageFrontEdit::getPage ProcessWire\FieldgroupsArray::changed ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\FieldgroupsArray::changed ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\FieldgroupsArray::changed ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\FieldgroupsArray::changed ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\TemplatesArray::changed ProcessWire\TemplatesArray::changed ProcessWire\TemplatesArray::changed ProcessWire\TemplatesArray::changed ProcessWire\TemplatesArray::changed ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\TemplateFile::render ProcessWire\DefaultPage::render ProcessWire\PageRender::renderPage ProcessWire\TemplateFile::render ProcessWire\ProcessController::execute ProcessWire\UserPage::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\UserPage::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::execute ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::buildLoginForm ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::loginFormProcessReady ProcessWire\InputfieldForm::processInput ProcessWire\InputfieldText::processInput ProcessWire\InputfieldText::processInput ProcessWire\InputfieldSubmit::processInput ProcessWire\InputfieldHidden::processInput ProcessWire\InputfieldHidden::processInput ProcessWire\InputfieldHidden::processInput ProcessWire\InputfieldHidden::processInput ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::loginFailed ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::loginFormProcessed ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::renderLoginForm ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::headline ProcessWire\InputfieldForm::render ProcessWire\InputfieldForm::renderInputfield ProcessWire\InputfieldText::render ProcessWire\InputfieldForm::renderInputfield ProcessWire\InputfieldText::render ProcessWire\InputfieldForm::renderInputfield ProcessWire\InputfieldSubmit::render ProcessWire\InputfieldForm::renderInputfield ProcessWire\InputfieldHidden::render ProcessWire\InputfieldForm::renderInputfield ProcessWire\InputfieldHidden::render ProcessWire\InputfieldForm::renderInputfield ProcessWire\InputfieldHidden::render ProcessWire\InputfieldForm::renderInputfield ProcessWire\InputfieldHidden::render ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::getLoginLinks ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\ProcessLogin::executed ProcessWire\AdminThemeUikit::getExtraMarkup ProcessWire\AdminThemeUikit::getExtraMarkup ProcessWire\AdminThemeUikit::getUikitCSS ProcessWire\AdminThemeUikit::getExtraMarkup ProcessWire\AdminThemeUikit::getExtraMarkup ProcessWire\AdminThemeUikit::getExtraMarkup ProcessWire\AdminThemeUikit::renderBreadcrumbs ProcessWire\AdminThemeUikit::getExtraMarkup ProcessWire\AdminThemeUikit::getExtraMarkup ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\ProcessPageView::finished ProcessWire\ProcessWire::finished ProcessWire\DefaultPage::viewable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::rootParent ProcessWire\DefaultPage::viewable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::rootParent ProcessWire\DefaultPage::rootParent ProcessWire\DefaultPage::rootParent ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\DefaultPage::viewable ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\DefaultPage::viewable ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\FieldsArray::changed ProcessWire\DefaultPage::viewable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::editable ProcessWire\UserPage::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\DefaultPage::addable ProcessWire\UserPage::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\DefaultPage::publishable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::editable ProcessWire\UserPage::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\DefaultPage::listable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::moveable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::editable ProcessWire\UserPage::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\DefaultPage::sortable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::editable ProcessWire\UserPage::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\DefaultPage::deleteable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::trashable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::restorable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::rootParent ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\PageArray::changed ProcessWire\DefaultPage::viewable ProcessWire\User::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\DefaultPage::editable ProcessWire\User::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\DefaultPage::addable ProcessWire\User::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\DefaultPage::publishable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::editable ProcessWire\User::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\DefaultPage::listable ProcessWire\User::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\User::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\DefaultPage::moveable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::editable ProcessWire\User::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\DefaultPage::sortable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::editable ProcessWire\User::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\DefaultPage::deleteable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::trashable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::restorable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::rootParent ProcessWire\PageArray::changed ProcessWire\PageArray::changed ProcessWire\DefaultPage::viewable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::editable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::addable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::publishable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::listable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::moveable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::editable ProcessWire\User::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\Pages::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::find ProcessWire\PageFinder::getQuery ProcessWire\DefaultPage::sortable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::editable ProcessWire\User::hasPagePermission ProcessWire\DefaultPage::deleteable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::trashable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::restorable ProcessWire\DefaultPage::rootParent ProcessWire\WireCache::log ProcessWire\WireCache::log ProcessWire\WireDateTime::relativeTimeStr ProcessWire\WireDateTime::relativeTimeStr ProcessWire\WireDateTime::relativeTimeStr ProcessWire\WireDateTime::relativeTimeStr ProcessWire\Session::changed ProcessWire\Session::changed ProcessWire\WireCache::log ProcessWire\WireCache::log ProcessWire\Fields::load ProcessWire\Fieldgroups::load ProcessWire\Templates::load ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::setQuietly ProcessWire\Fieldgroup::callUnknown ProcessWire\Session::init

I'm using a regular UIkit modal... Original theme: With the default theme the modal is vertically centered, which causes a weird glitch when closing it: As the UIkit docs mention there is a standardised way to center the modal: https://getuikit.com/docs/modal#center-modal. And as you can see there it will work properly if used properly. I don't know why the default modal is vertically centered with the new theme, but I know that adding these kind of visual "optimisations" causes problems. Could you please stick to default UIkit markup and concepts as much as possible with your overrides to avoid these kind of issues? Thank you.

Using the new theme on mobile seems very hard to me at the moment. The menu button is not available and the page tree with all pagelist actions is... somewhat strange. pagelist actions are sometimes not visible at all, sometimes they appear when clicked, sometimes they don't.

...that's the title of this video that I found recently and it had some useful tips & tricks that I didn't know:

Absolutely! Had the problem several times and it just hit me again 🙂

Hi @Hackasacka thx for your interest. I think it should be quite simple. But I don't have any capacities at the moment. Basically all that RockCommerce needs is a payment ID to work with. It saves that payment ID to the order and from that payment ID we can talk to the payment provider, which is in my case Mollie. So for example when an order is paid Mollie sends a request to the RockCommerce webhook url with the payment ID and the new payment status. RockCommerce then saves that to the order page. I guess with paypal or stripe it's a similar process? So ideally the code should be refactored that in the RockCommerce config we can choose from different payment providers that are installed. But I don't have any experience with PayPal or stripe and at the moment I don't have any capacities to add this myself anytime soon. Also note that mollie offers PayPal as an option, are you aware of that?

As long as you are not color blind I guess 🙂

Fresh on the dev branch: Some improvements for the toolbar (added a toggle):

Thx, already tried that, no luck. Also when updating dependencies manually which I already did I get some PHP errors 😞 Seems there is more to it, so if anybody wants to contribute his/her time and knowledge for this update it would be highly appreciated 🙂

RockShell currently uses the following composer.json file: { "require": { "illuminate/console": "^8.40", "illuminate/events": "^8.40", "symfony/browser-kit": "^5.4", "symfony/css-selector": "^5.4", "symfony/dom-crawler": "^5.4", "symfony/http-client": "^5.4", "symfony/mime": "^5.4" }, "autoload": { "files": [ "Application.php" ] }, "config": { "platform": { "php": "7.4.0" } } } I'm using PHP8.4 on my latest project and get many warnings like this: So I thought just update dependencies... Turns out it's not that simple. "composer update" will only update to the listed versions, which are already quite dated. Any experienced composer users here @teppo @Jonathan Lahijani that know an easy way to do this? illuminate/console for example is version 12.17 at the moment.

There is a free online event on ::: June 17, 2025 ::: 13:30–18:30 CET/CEST ::: 07:30–12:30 EST/EDT ::: 11:30–16:30 UTC https://lp.jetbrains.com/phpverse-2025/ @ryan what about taking part as a speaker on such events to make PW more popular?

Hey @Pavel Radvan thx for your question. I think what you are looking for is exactly what is shown in the example at the very bottom of this page in the mPDF docs: https://mpdf.github.io/paging/using-page.html Does that help or do you need more assistance? 🙂

@ryan I took some time to reflect and let the situation cool down. I'm very interested in keeping up a good relationship with you, which is why I want to address your last post rather than moving on and pretending nothing happened. I think this is neither what I said nor what I did. This statement has really bothered me a lot over the last days. I'm sorry if I made you feel that way. It was honestly not my intention and I apologise for that! I want to add that if you feel that the other person is behaving unfairly, it might be worth considering whether you've given them a fair chance to explain their perspective. I have read this thread again from the beginning, and I see many posts from my side that very much follow your suggested syntax for being taken seriously. However, I didn't feel that my concerns were being heard or addressed. I honestly think we both could have done better. I'm fine with that and I hope you are too! Otherwise please let me know and we can discuss this further.

Regarding the new scrollbars on the menu dropdowns. I think that's a great improvement! Is that part of the new style or is that considered to be part of the base style for all AdminThemeUikit styles? I think it would be great to have it in the base style!

Thx for adding that detail! Considering that Ryan mentioned the nature of the new style being like extending PHP classes, I wonder why settings of the default theme are part of the AdminThemeUikit module. Visible or not - technically they are built into AdminThemeUikit, which feels strange. I'd expect AdminStyleKonkat to be a separate module and therefore all dedicated settings would be on the module config of AdminStyleKonkat. Again, this module could still be part of the core and it could still be turned on by default. At least for new installations - I still think it would be good to not change the style with the upgrade without asking. Settings that apply to all styles on the other hand would be part of the module config of AdminThemeUikit. For example the CMD+K hotkey is independent of the style and thus would belong on the config screen of AdminThemeUikit, which would mean this feature can be used by any style. I think this would be a very clear setup that clearly separates the responsibilities of the THEME and the STYLE and this would very well reflect what Ryan mentioned as strategy.

@jploch sorry for all the posts, but as you can tell I'm spending a lot of time in the PW backend, so I report things as they pop up. Take your time to evaluate them and to respond. Expanding on this suggestion it confuses me a lot to see this part of the GUI inside of AdminThemeUikit: I think it would make much more sense if these settings were defined on the settings page of AdminStyleKonkat, as it makes no sense to me to allow darkmode settings on AdminThemeUikit if I'm using AdminStyleRock which does not offer a darkmode. @ryan I hope this is considered to be constructive feedback and I hope it helps you to understand why I got a very different impression of what this new "theme" is or should be.

Thank you. Thank you.

Because the code of the module would be identical to AdminThemeUikit, and the new theme is still all Uikit. I want AdminThemeUikit to remain PW’s main admin theme, just with more options for the appearance of it; especially one that helps us attract new users. Were it a 3rd party thing for people to install then a separate module would still make sense. But for this case, it would just be unnecessary overhead. I forgot to respond to this one and I'd consider it important. It sounds like you totally misunderstood my request. I'm very much for using AdminThemeUikit and I very much support all the mentioned goals. I was just questioning why it was not built in a way that followed what we pushed to the core in 2021. And probably released as a module first, and then, when early adopters had time to test and give feedback, was merged to the core and set as the new default. I think this approach would have signalled the appropriate care and it would also have helped to identify which parts need to be part of the new theme and which parts need to be addressed in the base theme. If keeping and supporting all existing themes is a goal, then I think this approach would have best signalled this and would have had the best chance to make it happen. Take this comment for example from my rock theme: // @ryan // early stage idea // can we move those colors to the base theme (eg --pw-gray-200)? // then all styles could inherit those colors // and all module developers could rely on them. // the problem now is that modules use their own colors // often based on reno, which make the style break when // someone uses AdminStyleRock or any other style/theme You see that I even used css variables in this comment, so I'm definitely aware of their possibilities and benefits. But the more complex things get the more careful we have to be. --- I can't understand what you mean by "code would be identical to AdminThemeUikit". Just have a look at AdminStyleHello if you did not already. I built it in 2022 to propose a clean way of how to extend the base uikit theme in ProcessWire. I don't see how that would be considered to be "identical to AdminThemeUikit"? As it is not too late for anything may I ask if the current setup can be changed? Could the new theme be called "AdminStyleKonkat" and could it be built in a way that I proposed with AdminStyleHello in 2022 (or better 😄 )? I think this would help in reducing confusion about what is a theme and what is a skin and it would clearly show that all styles are just a skin on top of AdminThemeUikit and all are equally supported and the user can choose whatever he/she wants. If AdminStyleKonkat was built in that way I'm not sure whether supporting AdminStyleRock made sense, as it tackled the same goals, but I think this does not matter. I think the current situation is confusing. We have AdminThemeUikit and there we have two options. The "default" theme and the "original" theme. Then we have some themes and styles lying around somewhere in the modules directory. Like AdminThemeBoss (which is also a skin on top of AdminThemeUikit as far as I know and which seems to also tackle similar goals with having neutral colors and one primary color) or AdminStyleRock. If a user wanted to use one of these modules he had to install it as a module and then he had to go to AdminThemeUikit to select "original" theme. If he didn't do that, the style might cause problems and the user would likely think that the style is broken and can not be used. This has already happened in only two weeks of having the new theme on the dev branch: https://github.com/processwire/processwire-issues/issues/2078 I think this setup is confusing and I think the process for users is currently confusing as well. I could think of the new style being a module (AdminStyleKonkat) and any other style being the same. Being a module does not mean it can not be in the core. I don't understand that conclusion. We have many modules in the core, some of them being installed by default, some being ready to install with the click of a button. AdminThemeUikit could, for example, then pick up all modules that are installed and follow the naming convention "AdminStyle..." and list them as an option to choose from: vs.

Serious question: If it's not too late for anything, then why is feedback like this not considered to be helpful? What I tried to point out is that when using UIkit like explained in their docs, then we would not have these issues at all. To change the primary color all you'd have to do is this: @global-primary-background: red; Then all primary buttons will use that color. All progressbars will use that color. All UIkit components will use that color. And any component that they might add in the future will use that color as well. Which means that any developer in the world can not only use what the core uses but anything UIkit has to offer. Framing that as "features that ProcessWire traditionally did not offer" is what I consider as not being helpful. We, on the other hand, are using thousands of overrides at the moment. Anything that Diogo didn't think of will possibly cause issues. Cause frustration or ugly fixes on our side and cause Github issues on your side and I think your time can be spent better. Seeing reno green shine through tells me that the new theme must be extending (if you don't want to call it overriding) the reno theme and not the base theme, that I carefully split apart from the reno theme in 2021 to make exactly that possible: Properly extending the base theme without applying layer by layer of overrides. Exactly like you mentioned with PHP classes. What I see in the new theme does not match what I read in your announcements and explanations, sorry. I consider that to be a very valuable feedback for anyone that is open to hearing it. Unfortunately for many reasons I got the impression that it's too late for such input. And I understand that this is a difficult situation. That's why I apologised. It does indeed not help if anybody complains about fundamental issues if it's not possible to change them. I get that and as I said I'll try to be more constructive with that situation. But please don't pretend that it's not too late for anything and that we are at an early stage in the process. This feels dishonest to me on my cost. Obviously I also do not think that micro-managing a professional designer would be helpful and that's not what I have been suggesting. I just don't see anything wrong in asking the community for input upfront. At least that's what I did with my calendar module and I think it was a very helpful and pleasant process: What features should a PW calendar module have? The community was just as great as it has always been. It does of course not mean to ask the community to decide every button's color. But it might help to reduce the risk of having blind spots. It might make the process even more creative, not less. It might help in making the community feel heard, accepted and valued. And it might even help in saving development time by cutting on features that sounded/looked cool at first but raised serious concerns in the community. And one more thing about the term "secret": You have some good evidence here. It was not my point though, and it might have been more constructive to ask me what made me feel like that than proving me wrong. I know I'm not the only one feeling like this. English is not my first language, but that sounds ironic to me and I'm not sure if it is the best time for being ironic after I apologised. I'm not sure how a user will feel when using dark mode for everything and some pages suddenly appear in light mode, but at least this means that it's no longer a go/no-go decision when somebody wants to use one of my modules, so thank you for that. Do i interpret this correctly as that darkmode is not any more considered to be experimental and is here to stay? --- @ryan please be reminded that I still very much admire what you have built and achieved. I'm sorry that you have expected a different feedback. But I hope it's ok to not only cheer if we like what we see but also raise our voice if we don't. Thx and all the best

I already got used to the new toggles. In some cases though they still feel wrong. Like in the example above. Also note that the description clearly says "Check the box next to ..." That means we'd also need to change descriptions across the admin. And we'd need to ask all the translators to update their language packs as well. I think a better approach would be to let checkboxes be checkboxes unless they are whitelisted to be converted to toggles (eg by applying a class like "pw-toggles" to any parent dom element).

Thx and sorry for the confusion. It was probably not the best example. Thank you for adding those. What I wanted... Not really. To be honest I just wanted to show why I think the approach you took with this theme is fundamentally wrong. Admittedly, some of my posts lately have not been very constructive, and I apologise for that. The thing is: As you can tell I'm heavily invested in ProcessWire. I don't understand why such fundamental decisions are taken behind closed doors. Why you (Ryan and Konkat) didn't reach out to the community upfront. I even asked Ryan to connect once he announced that someone is working on a new theme. It didn't happen. Why has it been a mystery who is working on this? It's some awesome goals you are tackling. Why not tell that upfront? Why not ask for feedback, concerns or help? Why not just create a module, like everybody else did in the past (AdminThemeBoss, AdminStyleChroma, etc.)? That early adopters can test, provide feedback and maybe think about some decisions before it is too late? I have been on the dev branch for years without any big issues that I can remember. I have always had a lot of trust in the dev branch. Ryan has always been very careful about any new additions. Very careful about not breaking any existing installations. Now that changed. Suddenly we had a new default theme. A theme, that turns checkboxes into toggles. That causes my modules to break, at least in dark mode. All of that enabled by default. And with all the context from the past I had the impression that there must not be much interest in feedback from the community - why else would you develop everything secretly? I'm sorry if that was a misinterpretation as you seem to be open to feedback. I'm just sad as it seems to be too late now for many things. Adding overrides one by one as they pop up still does not feel good, sorry. But I try to be more constructive with my feedback in the future.

Quoting a statement from the other thread here, as that explains a lot and with that context I can totally understand why you disagree with me in aligning css variable names with uikit less variables. In that case it's a valid strategy 🙂

Oh, that's right, it's a bit hidden 🙂 https://processwire.com/blog/posts/new-2.8-version-current-projects-and-pw-usage/ --> https://github.com/processwire/processwire-legacy Maybe you get it running like this?

@JNB the reason for this error is the same as with the other module that you disabled (by adding a dot to the folder name): Namespaces. Please check out this blog post that explains how to best upgrade a PW 2.x site to 3.x: https://processwire.com/blog/posts/pw-3.0.32/ Maybe anyone else has more experience with this topic. I don't really have 🙂 So maybe it would be best to restore the backup, then upgrade to 2.8 and then upgrade to 3.x ?!

Glad you found the issue! Please mark this topic [solved] if you find time 🙂 Thx