Should it be possible to reference fields in different sections? If so, the field selection dropdown should probably also include the section name for cases when you have multiple fields with the same name (currently it's just the field name)

Yes, that should certainly be possible. And I agree that the fields should be shown as "section > field" or similar.

It's currently possible to create a cycle (e.g. field A depends on field B and vice versa). This can lead to both fields being hidden with no way to bring them back. I think this can be problematic and probably should not be allowed.

The management are should never hide fields, but rather just indicate that a field would be hidden. That's also important w/o cycles (which should indeed be disallowed) since you may not immediately know which fields depends on which other fields.

PS: It's easier if you create individual review comments on some dummy line in the diff so there are threads for each point. Otherwise discussions are a mess until GitHub finally adds comment threads not linked to code lines...

The management are should never hide fields, but rather just indicate that a field would be hidden.

@ThiefMaster I changed it so that in the management section the "hidden" field is greyed to indicate it will not be displayed in the user's section.

@ThiefMaster @tomasr8 alright, ready for review!

In response to @tomasr8 questions/ideas:

• Should it be possible to hide entire sections? (probably out of scope for this PR though)

Let's keep out out of this PR for now?

• Should it be possible to reference fields in different sections? If so, the field selection dropdown should probably also include the section name for cases when you have multiple fields with the same name (currently it's just the field name)

In principle, I think that it should be possible to reference fields in other sections. This may come at the expense of clarity, though. On the one hand, we will have very verbose items in the dropdown. On the other hand, it may not be obvious on which field another one is depending on when the registration form is very long. Do you have any ideas on how to mitigate this?

• What happens when a required field is hidden? Should it be possible to submit anyway? If not, how do we show the error message in that case?

Good question. I believe that marking a field as required really means "required if displayed". If you agree with this, then it's just a matter of making the backend validation not require data if the field was not displayed.

• It's currently possible to create a cycle (e.g. field A depends on field B and vice versa). This can lead to both fields being hidden with no way to bring them back. I think this can be problematic and probably should not be allowed.

True. I guess that this should be checked when saving field settings and display an error explaining the cycle. Do you have any other idea of how this could be displayed to the event manager?

I believe that marking a field as required really means "required if displayed". If you agree with this, then it's just a matter of making the backend validation not require data if the field was not displayed.

Yes, if the field is hidden, then it's no longer required. This also makes sense because depending on what choice you select, you may want to require the user to fill in certain fields.

True. I guess that this should be checked when saving field settings and display an error explaining the cycle. Do you have any other idea of how this could be displayed to the event manager?

I think it's rare enough that it doesn't need to be a super user-friendly message. Something like "Field conditions may not have cycles (a -> b -> c -> a)" would be perfectly fine for me.

In principle, I think that it should be possible to reference fields in other sections. This may come at the expense of clarity, though. On the one hand, we will have very verbose items in the dropdown. On the other hand, it may not be obvious on which field another one is depending on when the registration form is very long. Do you have any ideas on how to mitigate this?

Just an idea, but If we allow referencing fields in other sections we could use two dropdowns - one to select the section and another to select the field.

On the other hand, it may not be obvious on which field another one is depending on when the registration form is very long.

I'm afraid that might happen even if we only allow referencing fields in the same section - people will just create one large section which wouldn't be any more readable. It might also be difficult to 'explain' to the user that only fields in the same section can be referenced..

Added changes to:

• Avoid selecting the same field as condition.
• Avoid cycles.
• Replicate the same condition logic when creating the field, not just when updating.

In principle, I think that it should be possible to reference fields in other sections. This may come at the expense of clarity, though. On the one hand, we will have very verbose items in the dropdown. On the other hand, it may not be obvious on which field another one is depending on when the registration form is very long. Do you have any ideas on how to mitigate this?

Just an idea, but If we allow referencing fields in other sections we could use two dropdowns - one to select the section and another to select the field.

I think this would be nicer than prefixing field captions with section title. To improve the UX and avoid managers to always select choices in 2 dropdowns when configuring conditional fields, I would make it so that, by default, the current section of the field is pre-selected.

On the other hand, it may not be obvious on which field another one is depending on when the registration form is very long.

I'm afraid that might happen even if we only allow referencing fields in the same section - people will just create one large section which wouldn't be any more readable. It might also be difficult to 'explain' to the user that only fields in the same section can be referenced..

What do you think about highlighting the depending field when hovering a conditional field? This should happen only in the management view. We could also add an icon on conditional fields that, when clicking on it, displays the caption of the depending field.

What do you think about highlighting the depending field when hovering a conditional field? This should happen only in the management view. We could also add an icon on conditional fields that, when clicking on it, displays the caption of the depending field.

Not sure how much highlighting would help for large forms where you can't fit both fields on the page. Some kind of icon/tooltip sounds good though!

@ThiefMaster everything addressed! Ready for another round 😄 .