theloneliestmonk → made their first commit to this issue’s fork.
Should this issue be reopened since what was committed in #28 and #35 did not solve the issues for everyone's use as evidenced by the patch creation and improvement in #41?
Trying to check that a patch file for issue #3893259 could be removed as it was committed to the module. However, when checking the commit, the code showed no indication of correcting the underlying problem. Going further into the rabbit hole it appears the file is now associated with #33171133. I am merely renaming the file so that someone else doesn't fall down the same rabbit hole I went into.
theloneliestmonk → created an issue.
theloneliestmonk → created an issue.
theloneliestmonk → created an issue.
theloneliestmonk → created an issue.
theloneliestmonk → created an issue.
theloneliestmonk → created an issue.
theloneliestmonk → created an issue.
Hate to pile on, however I am finding this to still be an issue on Dec. 26th 2024. The problem has been identified, however the patches do not solve the problem for me. It would be nice to know if the patch is close to solving the issue and if so what can one do to help speed along the finalization of the patch.
theloneliestmonk → created an issue.
TheLoneliestMonk → made their first commit to this issue’s fork.
Here is a patch using the proposed solution of using the $identifier parameter instead of the object "field" value.
TheLoneliestMonk → created an issue.