[pickers] nested slot props not working in textfield

[FerhatAvdic]

Steps to reproduce

[Steps:

1. Open this link to live example: (Codepen Link)
2. Pass textfield slotprops via parent component into the datepicker component
3. spread textfield slotprops into the slotprops: { textfield } prop
   ]

Current behavior

Nested slotProps are not applied to TextField in the DateTimePicker component.
Nested legacy props like inputProps etc. work, but are deprecated.

Expected behavior

The slotProps passed from parent to DateTimePicker, and used inside its slotProps: {textField: {slotProps }} should work.

Context

Im trying to modify behavior of the Textfield dynamically from a parent component.

Your environment

npx @mui/envinfo

  Firefox browser used.

    @emotion/react: ^11.11.4 => 11.14.0
    @emotion/styled: ^11.11.5 => 11.14.0
    @mui/core-downloads-tracker:  6.3.0
    @mui/material: ^6.3.0 => 6.3.0
    @mui/private-theming:  6.3.0
    @mui/styled-engine:  6.3.0
    @mui/system:  6.3.0
    @mui/types:  7.2.20
    @mui/utils:  6.3.0
    @mui/x-date-pickers: ^7.23.3 => 7.23.3
    @mui/x-internals:  7.23.0
    @types/react: ^19.0.2 => 19.0.2
    react: 19.0.0 => 19.0.0
    react-dom: 19.0.0 => 19.0.0
    typescript: ~5.6.2 => 5.6.3

Search keywords: nested slotprops, datepicker slotprops, slotprops, datetimepicker slotprops

[michelengelen]

Hey @FerhatAvdic ... thanks for opening this issue here.
We actually do use the InputProps in our useClearableField hook, so we need to switch to using slotProps before we can incorporate material-ui@v7.

@flaviendelangle is there already an issue handling this, or should we use this instead?

[flaviendelangle]

We can use #14284

I think we will drop the usage of the Text Field component before supporting @mui/material@7 (see this doc section for context, which will become opt-out in our v8 and the only available structure in our v9).

So I'm not sure we will support the Text Field slots in the forseable future.

[LukasTy]

Thank you for creating this issue, but I'm closing it as a duplicate of #14284. 😉