[4.0] Module position no more empty when coming from CPanel

[infograf768]

Pull Request for Issue #24575

Summary of Changes

Forcing userstate to administrator modules

Testing Instructions

Load Site Modules Manager to be sure userstate is set to site modules
Switch to Control Panel
Edit a module through the cog

Before patch

The module position is empty

After patch

It is now correctly using cpanel position

@chmst @franz-wohlkoenig

[chmst]

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on a0846e4

---

_{This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/24583.}

[infograf768]

Solved conflicts.
One more tester.

[Quy]

Is this necessary 'int'?

[infograf768]

not sure

[Quy]

Checked similar calls and they don't include 'int'.

[infograf768]

done

[Quy]

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 286b10c

---

_{This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/24583.}

[ghost]

Status "Ready To Commit".

[SharkyKZ]

This is not the right approach, IMO. The layout should not be setting user state. This way admin filter is forced whenever a page containing a module with this layout is visited.

[infograf768]

@SharkyKZ
There are 2 possible solutions:

1. Check if the position is cpanel and set userstate in the layout.
   This would work for all admin modules in the cpanel position and only for these

2. The only other solution I see is to add in EACH admin module helper the code
   Factory::getApplication()->setUserState('com_modules.modules.client_id', 1);

What do you propose?

[SharkyKZ]

One option is to get client_id from form data in the field here:

joomla-cms/administrator/components/com_modules/Field/ModulesPositioneditField.php

Line 52 in 5f7bb27

$clientId = Factory::getApplication()->getUserState('com_modules.modules.client_id', 0);

$clientId  = $this->form->getValue('client_id', '', Factory::getApplication()->getUserState('com_modules.modules.client_id', 0));

Other option would be to add client_id to URL and have controller set the user state based on that.

[infograf768]

Please make the PR yourself as I do not understand what you propose.

[SharkyKZ]

See PR #24698 for alternative.

[infograf768]

Closing in favour of #24698
Thanks @SharkyKZ