[5.4] Remove unused CSS from mod_articles

[drmenzelit]

During the creation of the mod_articles for Joomla 5.2 there were several changes and a few lines of CSS were not removed in time.

Summary of Changes

Removed unused CSS

Testing Instructions

Create articles module with different options (vertical, horizontal, with / without images, etc.) and in different module positions. Apply the PR and check that nothing changed.

Actual result BEFORE applying this Pull Request

Expected result AFTER applying this Pull Request

No changes

Link to documentations

Please select:

• Documentation link for docs.joomla.org:

• No documentation changes for docs.joomla.org needed

• Pull Request link for manual.joomla.org:

• No documentation changes for manual.joomla.org needed

[richard67]

Suggested add on to testing instructions: Test the module not only with different options but also on different positions to make sure the CSS removed here is not needed on certain module positions for overriding CSS coming from the template for that position.

@drmenzelit Does that make sense? If so, should it be added to the testing instructions?

[exlemor]

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 4861bcf

I have tested this successfully with 4 new Articles Modules on the same page. - Each with different configs/settings. Thanks @drmenzelit

(screenshots)
Article I

Article II

Article III

Article IV

---

_{This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/45974.}

[richard67]

@exlemor Could you check it on different module positions, too?

[drmenzelit]

@richard67 you are right, I added the module positions to the testing instructions. @exlemor has already tested different module positions ;-)

[exlemor]

@exlemor Could you check it on different module positions, too?

Hi @richard67, humm I thought I did, see the first of each of 2 screenshots?

Article I module is on below-top,
Article II module is on main-bottom
Article II module is on sidebar-right
Article IV module is on top-b

(if you want me to check another position, let me know)

[richard67]

@exlemor Well, you have different settings, but for each setting you test only one module position.

What if some setting looks good on one position but not on the other, but some other setting does not have that problem?

I think each setting should be tested on several positions.

[exlemor]

@exlemor Well, you have different settings, but for each setting you test only one module position.

What if some setting looks good on one position but not on the other, but some other setting does not have that problem?

I think each setting should be tested on several positions.

OK, sure... but with the number of settings in the new Articles module, and with at least 5 module positions (knowing there are quite a few), unless my math is wrong that could be as high as 17,100,720 possible combinations to test... lol

I will do more testing (but not 17 millions :p lol)

[richard67]

Sure not 17 million. The main thing is the layout, horizontal or whatever else, on different positions (including left and right sidebars).

[exlemor]

@richard67 - continued to test more combinations in the last 50 or so minutes (and other than finding something that already reported about position: below-top related to the new article module and how the grid is defined and not this PR) nothing else - everything behaved as it should!

Thank you @drmenzelit!

[richard67]

@exlemor Thanks for checking.

[dautrich]

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 4861bcf

---

_{This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/45974.}

[richard67]

RTC

---

_{This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/45974.}

[muhme]

Final test before merge with JBT graft nightly build and full package from PR
✅ Created two modules, one with ascending and one with descending order, different places tested: sidebar-right, below-top and main-bottom

[muhme]

Thank you @drmenzelit for your contribution. Thank you @exlemor and @dautrich for testing.