readonly-plain-text with button addon
See original GitHub issueThe readonly plain text doesnt work with button addon.
Live example: https://codepen.io/caiquecastro/pen/eMdmYo
<div class="input-group mb-3">
<div class="input-group-prepend">
<button class="btn btn-outline-secondary" type="button">Button</button>
</div>
<input type="text" readonly class="form-control-plaintext" id="staticEmail" value="email@example.com">
</div>
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 6 years ago
- Comments:9 (8 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Input field readonly without making the input-addon button ...
When I make the input field readonly, it automatically makes the button in input-group-addon also readonly. Below is the code:
Read more >Making a Field Read-only - Gravity Forms Documentation
Sometimes making a field read-only can be useful, allowing you to then utilize that field for dynamic display of various messages.
Read more >rich text readonly - Laserfiche Answers
Is there a way to make the rich text field read only with javascript? ... But to achieve results similar to setting the...
Read more >How to browse in Text-Only Mode in Chrome, Edge, or Firefox
How to browse in Text-Only Mode in Firefox · Open the Firefox browser on your PC. · Type about:config and press Enter button....
Read more >Form controls · Bootstrap v5.0
If you want to have <input readonly> elements in your form styled as plain text, use the .form-control-plaintext class to remove the default...
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Why not use only the
readonly
attribute then? If the idea is that at some point a user could interact with that field, I would think it should be a field from the beginning.regardless of the specific use case here, though, i’d say the fix (or something similar to it) seems legit to me.