iCheck checkbox issue. Is there a way to ignore this for a particular case?

[-M-]

My best guess is, that this is related to particular templates (cart template?), so I will keep this as short as possible.

 

All checkboxes on whatever page is being automatically replaced by iCheck checkboxes. Obviously this looks great and also works great. Except when you have actually opened a template which uses this and then click on "Login"

 

The checkbox there is also replaced with an iCheck checkbox. Not only will this cause that the particular checkbox stops working, it also takes up to much space.

 

I don't want it remove, because on the rest of the templates it works without issues; it's just the 'Login' popup screen. Now I am wondering; is there a way to ignore or bypass this? So it will use a "normal" small checkbox instead without any special effects, like with iCheck?

 

I took two screenshots to clarify what I exactly mean; my pictures explain much more than my aweful English.

 

This is the one with the big (iCheck) checkbox:

As you can see it's taking a lot of space. Also it doesn't work / do anything upon click.

This always happens with any template which is using iCheck script.

 

This is the normal, small checkbox:

Now everything looks normal and the checkbox works also.

 

Any ideas to ignore / bypass iCheck for a particular checkbox? Apparently it uses as JS script to transform them, if I am not mistaken.

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Regards

[brian!]

any help with the post below... ?

 

http://forum.whmcs.com/showthread.php?108099-iCHECK&p=452115#post452115

[-M-]

Yes, thank you brian!

 

Thanks to the information, I managed to solve it.

 

I did the following, since I didn't want to use it in base.js (chance of losing it during update), but I applied it to whmcs.js of the particular theme.

 

I added this to whmcs.js:

 

   //iCheck removal 
   jQuery('.icheckfixlogin').iCheck('destroy');

 

And added an the following class to the 2 checkbox inputs:

 

class="icheckfixlogin"

 

Thanks again for pointing me to that thread.

 

Regards