SOLVED: Conditions based on Pods simple relationship fields no longer work

It looks like one of the most recent Bricks updates broke our conditions which are based on Pods simple relationship fields.

For example: The following field allows to store the gender of a team member:

And the following condition displays a female placeholder image if no individual portrait is present and the gender is set to female:

This worked fine for the last two months, but since recently no placeholder image is displayed.

We have a very similar issue with conditions based on the following Pods field:

Conditions based on other Pods field types still work as expected.

We are running Bricks 1.8.3 and WordPress 6.2.2

Can you try with :value, e.g. {pods….gender:value}

Cheers

Patric

{pods_wh_team_member_whte_gender} and {pods_wh_team_member_whte_gender:value} return the same result, namely “Female” or “Male” (instead of “1” or “2” as before).

Hey Martin,

thanks for your report.

I might be wrong but didn’t we have a similar topic in February? Still waiting on your answer over there… :slight_smile:

Best,

André

Ok.

I am not using pods - only ACF, so unfortunately I can’t test or help any further.

Cheers

Patric

Hey André

Well, I was hoping that my like for your workaround was clear enough as an answer…

But that’s the point: Your workaround worked for some months, and now it has stopped working. Querying that type of Pods field used to return the part BEFORE the pipe symbol, now it returns the part AFTER the pipe symbol.

Cheers,
Martin

Hey Martin,

but in my workaround we talked about using the contains operator as the field value is stored in an array syntax in the DB. And we were talking about string values (like option-1, option-2 and so on) instead of just integers (1, 2 and so on). Now you’re using the == operator and integer values. So obviously something has changed on your side.

image

option-1|Option 1
option-2|Option 2
option-3|Option 3

Best,

André

Have a look at the second example (field: whmr_equipment): There I have set it up exactly as you told me (IDs as strings), and there I am using the contains operator (no screenshot, but you can trust me). That’s the way I did it for «Multiple Select» fields.

The == operator and integer values used to work fine with «Single Select» fields – like in the first example (field: whte_gender).

So: Both of these examples worked for several months, and now they don’t. I am the only admin on this website, and haven’t touched neither the Pods fields nor the Bricks conditions.

These functions simply do not return the same result as they used to. And it’s easy to proof since if I change the condition to the following, I works again:

But using the option labels for a comparison is far from ideal (they may change, and they are translated), so this is no real solution.

Hi André

Any news on this issue? It has quite an impact on our website, and we need a solution ASAP. Thanks.

Best,
Martin

Dear Bricks Team

Two Bricks releases and almost a month have gone by without a solution (not even a confirmation) for this bug.

As I mentioned before, this issue causes errors on our website, which is crucial to our business.

I’m sorry to say that this is not the service level a paying customer can expect.

Kind regards,
Martin

Hey Martin,

I missed this one after my initial replies. Sorry for that.

I just reproduced the issue and added it to our bug tracker.

Best,

André

1 Like

Hey @martin.sauter,

I wrote you a private message here on the forum. Can you maybe check and answer if you have a minute? :slight_smile: Thanks in advance!

Best,

André

Hey @martin.sauter,

we’ve fixed this issue in Bricks 1.9, now available as a one-click update in your WordPress Dashboard.

You can get the label by using the dynamic tag without a filter (e.g. {pods_gender}) and the value by using the :value filter (e.g. {pods_gender:value}). You probably want to use the latter for your conditions.

Please let us know if you are still experiencing issues.

Best,

André

Hi André

That solves the issue. Thank you!

Best,
Martin