Issues with Nested Looper for Custom Taxonomy

[Noaviv]

I feel like I have done this before but it is just not working for me.

I created an archive page for a custom post type, I wanted to display the posts grouped by a custom taxonomy. The custom post type is careers, the taxonomy I want to group the posts by is position_type

I have a row with two columns as a provider, I have this set to display all terms of the custom taxonomy:
Screenshot: https://cloud.noaviv.com/H25gSXwm

The column is set as the consumer
Screenshot: https://cloud.noaviv.com/mGlg6V8x

Then I have a row inside the column set as a looper provider for the posts and this is where I run into trouble, if I just set it to the post type it is fine, but when I try to filter it by the parent taxonomy slug nothing comes up
Here is my query:
post_type=careers&tax_query%5B0%5D%5Btaxonomy%5D=position_type&tax_query%5B0%5D%5Bfield%5D=slug&tax_query%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D={{dc:term:slug}}&posts_per_page=20&post_status=any

My structure, if that is not clear

• Row - Provider (term I want to group by)
  • Column - Consumer ( term name)
    • Row - Provider (posts with the current term)
      • Column - Consumer (list the posts with the current term)

Thanks for any assistance,
Lori

[ruenel]

Hi Lori,

Thanks for writing in! It seems that you are in the correct path.

• Row - Provider -> This will be Looper Provider All Terms {position types}
  • Column - Consumer -> To display each of the position types
    • Row - Provider -> Looper Provider Query String {post_type=careers&tax_query%5B0%5D%5Btaxonomy%5D=position_type&tax_query%5B0%5D%5Bfield%5D=slug&tax_query%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D={{dc:term:slug}}&posts_per_page=20&post_status=any}
      • Column - Consumer -> to display the post items under each Term.

If this is not working, please provide us access to your site so we can check it.

Thanks.

[Noaviv]

Thanks for that super fast response, guess it pays to be a night owl!

When I removed the tax_query and just switched it to position_type={{dc:term:slug}} it just worked, so I guess I was making it too hard on myself?

I noticed some of my other queries that were using special characters for queries also stopped working when 6.0 was released until I simplified them.

[prakash_s]

Hello @Noaviv,

Glad that we were able to help you. We have not received any complaints regarding the special characters on the query string. In case you still have any more concerns please let us know.

Thanks