Looping over sub fields in different ways

• Kvdriljeb

• May 18, 2023 at 5:27 am

Hi!

I have accustomed myself to do this when looping over sub fields:

$links = get_field( 'footer', settings_id() )['legal_links'];
if ( !empty( $links ) ) {
  foreach ( $links as $link ) {
    if ( !empty( $link ) {
      var_dump( $link );
    }
  }
}

In my opinion it’s really straightforward and just works.

Can this have some negative repercussions as opposed to have_rows() and a while loop like everywhere in the docs?

Thanks

• John Huebner

• May 18, 2023 at 8:59 am

That looks like it’s for a group field. This will also work for sub fields of a group field

$links = get_field('footer_legal_links', settings_id());

I personally find this easier to look at but they have the same meaning. But I always try to comment code when using a group field that it is a group field.

The only time you’re going to need to use have_rows() is if you have a repeater as a sub field of a group field so that you can loop over the repeater. Without the parent have_rows() on the group field you would have to get the repeater as an array an loop over the content of the array.

• Kvdriljeb

• May 18, 2023 at 10:42 am

Thanks John, that makes things clear.

Also good to know I can do it the way you’re mentioning, although I personally find the appending of sub fields a better way to do it:)

• John Huebner

• May 18, 2023 at 10:50 am

For me it wouldn’t matter what way I do it becuase I always make sure I comment group fields and why I am getting the fields in a specific way because of the fact that you can access sub fields of a group in multiple ways. I’ve discovered that it helps when I look back at my older code.

• Kvdriljeb

• May 23, 2023 at 5:12 am

That makes sense, although I’m the lazy kind and can’t rely on myself commenting it all. Standardization is a better fit for me:)