The log and picture widgets were both using "iforma" and "submita". Actually it did not break anything because it was only the form name repeated, not id. And nothing was using these names. Traffic Graphs widget was using just "iform". That is a bit dangerous for the future. I got tricked when cut-pasting some code to make some settings options for the Gateways widget. I kept "iform" and then wondered for a while why my Traffic Graphs widget show-hide settings would not save. There was traffic graph JS that referred to just "iform" and that started modifying the "iform" in my new Gateways widget code. Rather than having names "iforma", "iformb"... "submita", "submitb"... it seems much less risk of accidental duplication if these are named like: name_of_widget_iform name_of_widget_submit
I don't think there is any user-visible bug in 2.2.* - so this standardization could just go into 2.3
Standardize widget iform and submit names
The log and picture widgets were both using "iforma" and "submita".
Actually it did not break anything because it was only the form name
repeated, not id. And nothing was using these names.
Traffic Graphs widget was using just "iform". That is a bit dangerous
for the future. I got tricked when cut-pasting some code to make some
settings options for the Gateways widget. I kept "iform" and then
wondered for a while why my Traffic Graphs widget show-hide settings
would not save. There was traffic graph JS that referred to just "iform"
and that started modifying the "iform" in my new Gateways widget code.
Rather than having names "iforma", "iformb"... "submita", "submitb"...
it seems much less risk of accidental duplication if these are named
like:
name_of_widget_iform
name_of_widget_submit
I don't think there is any user-visible bug in 2.2.* - so this
standardization could just go into 2.3