Joomla-cms: [4.0] Update fontawesome 4- to fontawesome 5 classes

[N6REJ]

Steps to reproduce the issue

fontawesome 4 and below used .fa fa- with fontawesome 5 that is no longer the case.

Expected result

fontawesome 5 native classes used

Actual result

fontawesome 4 classes used.

System information (as much as possible)

Additional comments

I have a pr ready to go but I'm waiting on clarification on how to write up the testing instructions.
https://github.com/N6REJ/joomla-cms/tree/fa-5

[N6REJ]

@HLeithner here you go.

[Quy]

Are you looking for the following instructions?

Apply PR
Runnpm run i
Browse frontend and backend to make sure no visible changes with the icons.

[N6REJ]

@Quy what about the changes to the .sql file(s)

[brianteeman]

Hint - your code is not correct.Global search and replace will not be enough

[Quy]

Changed the above instructions.

@richard67 please advise on the sql. I think apply the PR. Delete configuration file and reinstall.

[richard67]

@N6REJ Your sql changes are ok because as long as we have not beta yet we don't promise updateability and so still can modify existing old 4.0*.sql update scripts. As far as I could see you only modified those statements where new data is inserted for J4, you did not try to modify any already existing data (which would be dangerous), and so I think they are correct. But I see no way to test them except to build an own update package and update a J3, and this result in a mess currently for other reasons. So your sql changes can be only tested by code review.

[richard67]

Of course it needs to check for each of the icons to which package they belong, fas (standard) or e.g. fab (brands). As far as I know almost all belong to fas, but I remember there were a few exceptions.

[brianteeman]

@richard67 that is one of the reasons why the code is wrong but you will see that in 2 seconds when you test it as it is so obvious

[richard67]

@brianteeman to be honest: up to now it looks all correct to me. we are already using the 3 letter class for the package when it is not "fas", like e.g. "fab", and the 2 letter "fa" is a synonym for "fas" as far as i could see here: https://fontawesome.com/how-to-use/on-the-web/setup/upgrading-from-version-4#changes. So either their page is wrong, or the code provided by Troy is right. Question: Have you tested that yourself?

[N6REJ]

closed since we have pr #27657

[brianteeman]

@richard67 of course I tested it. I wrote the original PR to update from fa 4 so I know what is involved and this is not correct