January 2005 - Development - lists.drupal.org

[drupal-devel] [task] Put revisions in their own table
by killes 20 Jan '05

20 Jan '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system Category: tasks Priority: normal Assigned to: killes(a)www.drop.org Reported by: killes(a)www.drop.org Updated by: killes(a)www.drop.org Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_3.patch (29.93 KB) I've implemented the aforementioned solution. This makes the patch much smaller. The patch now also removes taxonomy_node_has_term() which wasn't used anywhere. I'd really apprciate if some people could test drive the patch. It will be another huge improvement for 4.6. killes(a)www.drop.org Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 17:25 : killes(a)www.drop.org Currently all node revisions are stored in a serialized field in node.table and retrieved for _each_ page view although they are rarely needed. However, we have agreed that serializing data is bad and that we should try to keep the memory foot print pf Drupal small. Therefore I propose to create a separate revisions table which would be in principle identical to the node table, only that it could have several old copies of the same node. Extra data added by other modules could be added in a serialized field unless we find a better solution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 18:06 : jhriggs I too think the serialized approach is less than desirable, but here's an alternative. This would likely take some considerable rework in core and contrib, but the following is how we handle similar types of situations in our databases at work. It is more elegant that a separate table, and avoids the (almost exact) duplication of a table. Instead of separate tables, keep all revisions of nodes in the node table as follows: * add field: active (0/1 or Y/N) * add field: revision * every revision of a node is stored in the node table; however, only one revision can be active at any given time * nid can no longer be unique -- primary/unique key becomes (nid, active) * any time a node is loaded, updated (without revision), etc., the active version is used. Thoughts? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 18:57 : killes(a)www.drop.org I am not opposed to your scheme, but I want to stress the following: * Duplicating a table's structure is not bad (IMHO) as long as the content is different. * having two tables will allow us to have a rather small node table. This is (maybe) a performance gain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 19:37 : jhriggs I don't necessarily think that duplicating a table's structure is _bad_. It just seems to be wasteful and a pain to maintain. (Every change to the node table is made twice...easy to do, but also easy to miss perhaps.) As for performance, as long as nid and the active indicator are indexed, there shouldn't be any performance loss. Also, archiving an old version when making a new revision will be much simpler: just change the active indicator rather than copying an entire node to another table (and ensuring everything gets copied...again a potential maintainance issue). To be honest, I would just like to see the serialized data go away, regarless of what approach is taken. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 30, 2004 - 20:49 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_07-30-2004.p… (10.47 KB) I'm interested in using Drupal for a large scale wiki-type project. In order to do this, I need revisions to be in their own table. Attached is a patch to do just that. Most of the changes are pretty self explanatory. Spreading out node data across two tables meant that I had to add database functions to do locking/transactions. Without this, race conditions in which the database becomes corrupted are possible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 30, 2004 - 20:54 : Nick Nassar Oh yeah... The patch is a diff against Drupal CVS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 01:00 : Anonymous Gerhard speaking. Nick, thanks a lot for your nice patch! It saves me a great deal of labour. I looked through it and immediately liked it. You not only put the old revisions into a new table but also the current one. Do you have an estimate how much more expensive the additional join is? Besides a few minor coding style issues I found a major one: Just a few hours before you uploaded your patch JonBob's node access patch hit core. That means your patch won't apply anymore as all the queries you change have been changed. Can I bug you to update your patch? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 02:11 : Anonymous Also I think that your upgrade path loses existing revisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 03:39 : drumm I think this is the proper way to do things. No columns are duplicated, there is no serialized data, and only the fields that are logically revised are stored. Nothing jumped out at me as a way to have my node modules be able to keep a table of revisions of additional fields. I'm guessing this could be done within the confines of _insert and _update. Assuming the upgrade path works and modules can extend it I give it a +1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 15:40 : Nick Nassar It figures that just as I finish a big patch, another patch comes along and breaks it. Oh well, it should be a pretty easy to fix. I'll work on it. Fixing the upgrade path to keep revisions should be fairly painless. I found another issue that needs to be fixed before this patch gets merged. There format of a node needs to be stored for each revision. Otherwise, for modules that store a format for the nodes, such as page and book, if you write one revision in PHP and the next in HTML, the PHP revision will be displayed as HTML. This is part of a larger issue of how node modules should store revisions of additional fields. I think each module that wants to do this should create another table with (nid, revid) as the primary key. Just as when they want to add fields to a node they create another table with nid as the primary key. As far as performance goes, for sites that make heavy use of revisions, an extra join on primary keys is going to be a lot faster than grabbing all of the revisions from that database everytime. We would need to run benchmarks to determine is the overall difference in speed is for an average site is a gain or a loss. I'm guessing it's very minor either way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 14:55 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_08-23-2004.p… (10.92 KB) Here's an updated patch against CVS that puts revisions in their own table, provides an upgrade path, and fixes the format related bugs in the last patch. Hopefully, this can make it into CVS as soon as the freeze is over. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 15:10 : moshe weitzman Interesting patch ... drumm's question is still outstanding. how do modules store revisions of their fields? Are they expected to manage this on their own? Thats not how it works today. As an aside, i am seeing profile_ fields in my node.revisions column. One could argue that those need not be saved. They pertain to the node author, not to the node itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 17:14 : Nick Nassar Having modules be responsible for storing revisions of their own fields is a side-effect of storing revision data in tables. There's really no way around it. However, revisions generally don't make sense for node types that don't have PHP/HTML content, such as polls. I think it's going to be a pretty rare scenario for a new node type to want another field to change per-revision, so it's a pretty good trade-off. Storing fields that shouldn't be part of revisions, such as the profile_ fields, is a side-effect of storing revisions as serialized objects. Applying this patch will free up that wasted space. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 18:20 : Anonymous There should be a hook that let's the module choose whether it supports history. This way a module author can prevent the user from doing something that may break his module or just cause undefined behavior. If the module doesn't support history then don't let the user/admin choose to add history to nodes of that type. Craig ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 20:23 : Nick Nassar I agree, there should be an API change to make specifying support for revisions easier. In the interests of keeping patches small and keeping to one change per patch, I think the API change should be a separate issue. A sort of ad-hoc API to decide whether or not a module supports revisions by default already exists. Instead of having a hook, modules set the default value of the "Create new revision" field in the edit form. The admin can change this option in admin/node/configure/defaults. This patch doesn't change that. Revisions are broken for node types that have their own database structure, like polls, even when storing them as serialized objects. This patch doesn't change that, either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 26, 2004 - 03:35 : moshe weitzman I'm guessing that someone is going to have to demonstrate that this patch performs as well as current drupal before it gets comitted. i think this patch is a few benchmarks from being comitted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 27, 2004 - 02:04 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004.p… (11 KB) I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 27, 2004 - 02:05 : Nick Nassar I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 27, 2004 - 02:05 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004.p… (11 KB) I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 15, 2004 - 06:05 : elias1884 please overthink the revision system default workflow as well. don't look at the revision system as an isolated system but as a part of the whole workflow system! if you combine revisions with the moderation queue the most logic default workflow would be like that: auth user creates node (revision #0) admin approves the node (status = 1, moderation = 0) => node publicly available auth user finds typo and changes node (revision #1, status = 0, moderation = 1) ------- what happens at that point at the moment is, that the node is not accessible anymore at all until the new revision is approved by admin. of course the new revision should not go online until reviewed and approved, this is absolutely correct, but there is no reason to not take the old revision offline, since it was already approved and should therefore be online until the new revision is approved. it is not practical if a node disappears only because the author corrected a typo. ------- admin approves the node (status = 1, moderation = 0) eventhough I first thought a plain boolean active field would not be capable of providing that functionality if finally came to the conclusion, that it can. The only thing to do is to not set that bit, when a new revision is created, but when it is approved (in case moderation is activated under default workflow). Every revision should have its own moderation, status and active field and on approval they are set like this (status=1, moderation=0, active=Y). When you wanna rollback to an old revision, you can chose between all revisions that already have the moderation bit set back to 0 again and the published to 1. There should be an extra permission for rollback! another concern that I have about the default workflow is, that users can't see the content, they have just created, when moderation is enabled. Eventhough, there is a big fat "submission accepted" presented after submissions, unexperienced users tend to question the information those stupid tincans give them, if they can't find their content afterwards. Many users are really lazy bastards and they don't even read the status messages. The best feedback about whether his story was submitted successfully or not of course is, if he can find the story somewhere on the site, maybe with a status message on top of it, mentioning, that the content is currently not publicly available since it has not been approved yet. there should be a my content section under my account, like somebody is trying to do with the workspace module I guess. so my suggestion is to make (status=0, moderation=1) still available for the creator under a my content section somewhere! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 24, 2004 - 05:21 : Nick Nassar I agree. The current workflow for moderation queues and revisions needs to change, but this patch isn't the place for it. The patch is already too big, and it only does the backend stuff. Instead of adding more to this patch and making it take even longer to get into core, would you mind creating a new issue for your UI suggestions, so the those changes can be added as a separate patch? Thanks, Nick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 13:26 : Dries This patch is _much_ needed so I'd love to see someone revive it. In order for this patch to be accepted, the following needs to be done: Update this patch to CVS HEAD. Rename revid to vid. Rename node_rev to node_revisions. Rename node_rev.changed to node_revisions.timestamp. Rename $rnode to $revision. Fix the coding style to match Drupal's: proper spacing, single quotes where possible, proper variable names. Benchmark this patch with a large database with enough revisions. I'd be happy to benchmark this on my local copy of the drupal.org database. The book.log field should probably move to the node_revisions table. This can be done in a separate patch. Investigate whether transactions are well-supported. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 01:25 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004-r… (11.02 KB) I've worked a bit on the patch (coding style issues as mentioned by Dries). One thing I noticed is that the patch uses REPLACE. IIRC this needs to be chagned to "UPDATE, if fail INSERT" for pgsql compatibility. Nick, are you still interested in working on that patch? I'd like to know how it works on your site and work on getting it into core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 13:33 : Dries Gerhard: your patch does not apply. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 18:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org Yes, I know, that was the same version as I mailed to you earlier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 22:02 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions.patch (52.96 KB) Ok, upüdated the patch to cvs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 09:58 : Dries Some more comments: db_begin_transaction() and db_end_transaction() do not belong in database.inc, but in database.mysql.inc and database.pgsql.inc respectively. The node module calls node_revisionsision_list() which is not defined. (Fxed that on my local copy.) Do db_begin_transaction() and db_end_transaction() deprecate Jeremy's table locking patch? The upgrade path assigns the wrong user ID to each revision. The upgrade path assigns the wrong date to each revision (that or a node's revision page shows the wrong usernames/dates). The coding style needs a bit of work, but we can worry about that later. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 18:34 : Nick Nassar If you need any help getting those things fixed, just let me know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 18:50 : Nick Nassar How this relates to Jeremy's node locking patch: There was lots of discussion, and node locking was decided against because from an end user point of view you never want a node to be locked. He's now advocating for a much simpler patch that warns users if their changes will overwrite someone elses. That patch still has a race condition, which might be fixed using db_begin_transaction(). http://drupal.org/node/6025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 23:26 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_0.patch (55.96 KB) Here is an updated patch that tries to address Dries concerns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 15, 2004 - 09:32 : Dries Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions-bug.png (76.06 KB) It didn't fix the aforementioned bugs. See attached screenshot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 6, 2005 - 21:15 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_1.patch (51.77 KB) Ok, here is a new version. Dries and myself worked hart at it, so please have a look. what is still missing - database upgrades for the core modules with an own table - contrib modules need an upgrade too. - do we need nid and vid in both the node and the node_revisions table? - the amount of sql queries means a good stress testing for large databases. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 19, 2005 - 22:43 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_2.patch (49.49 KB) Here is an updated patch. We discussed to keep the current title in node module and also in the revisiosn table. This is content duplication but will save many joins as many queries only need the title of a node. Discussion is welcome. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/7582 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/7582

1 0

Re: [drupal-devel] [bug] form_weight should use dleta:15 in book outline admin
by Boris Mann 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:17:33 +0100, Bèr Kessels <drupal-devel(a)drupal.org> wrote: > This is a useability improvement *with code* ;) > > In book-pages node forms we use a delta of fifteen (-15 to +15) but in > the book-outline admin we dont dewfine this, resulting in a default > delta of ten. This should be consistent and thus both 15. > Bèr Kessels Actually, the delta should be infinite, weight should only be used internally, and we should have +/-, up/down arrows :P (And a javascript, drag-and-drop version from Chris Messina) But thanks, Ber. -- Boris Mann http://www.bryght.com

4 3

[drupal-devel] [task] Put revisions in their own table
by killes 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system Category: tasks Priority: normal Assigned to: killes(a)www.drop.org Reported by: killes(a)www.drop.org Updated by: killes(a)www.drop.org Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_2.patch (49.49 KB) Here is an updated patch. We discussed to keep the current title in node module and also in the revisiosn table. This is content duplication but will save many joins as many queries only need the title of a node. Discussion is welcome. killes(a)www.drop.org Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 17:25 : killes(a)www.drop.org Currently all node revisions are stored in a serialized field in node.table and retrieved for _each_ page view although they are rarely needed. However, we have agreed that serializing data is bad and that we should try to keep the memory foot print pf Drupal small. Therefore I propose to create a separate revisions table which would be in principle identical to the node table, only that it could have several old copies of the same node. Extra data added by other modules could be added in a serialized field unless we find a better solution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 18:06 : jhriggs I too think the serialized approach is less than desirable, but here's an alternative. This would likely take some considerable rework in core and contrib, but the following is how we handle similar types of situations in our databases at work. It is more elegant that a separate table, and avoids the (almost exact) duplication of a table. Instead of separate tables, keep all revisions of nodes in the node table as follows: * add field: active (0/1 or Y/N) * add field: revision * every revision of a node is stored in the node table; however, only one revision can be active at any given time * nid can no longer be unique -- primary/unique key becomes (nid, active) * any time a node is loaded, updated (without revision), etc., the active version is used. Thoughts? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 18:57 : killes(a)www.drop.org I am not opposed to your scheme, but I want to stress the following: * Duplicating a table's structure is not bad (IMHO) as long as the content is different. * having two tables will allow us to have a rather small node table. This is (maybe) a performance gain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 19:37 : jhriggs I don't necessarily think that duplicating a table's structure is _bad_. It just seems to be wasteful and a pain to maintain. (Every change to the node table is made twice...easy to do, but also easy to miss perhaps.) As for performance, as long as nid and the active indicator are indexed, there shouldn't be any performance loss. Also, archiving an old version when making a new revision will be much simpler: just change the active indicator rather than copying an entire node to another table (and ensuring everything gets copied...again a potential maintainance issue). To be honest, I would just like to see the serialized data go away, regarless of what approach is taken. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 30, 2004 - 20:49 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_07-30-2004.p… (10.47 KB) I'm interested in using Drupal for a large scale wiki-type project. In order to do this, I need revisions to be in their own table. Attached is a patch to do just that. Most of the changes are pretty self explanatory. Spreading out node data across two tables meant that I had to add database functions to do locking/transactions. Without this, race conditions in which the database becomes corrupted are possible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 30, 2004 - 20:54 : Nick Nassar Oh yeah... The patch is a diff against Drupal CVS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 01:00 : Anonymous Gerhard speaking. Nick, thanks a lot for your nice patch! It saves me a great deal of labour. I looked through it and immediately liked it. You not only put the old revisions into a new table but also the current one. Do you have an estimate how much more expensive the additional join is? Besides a few minor coding style issues I found a major one: Just a few hours before you uploaded your patch JonBob's node access patch hit core. That means your patch won't apply anymore as all the queries you change have been changed. Can I bug you to update your patch? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 02:11 : Anonymous Also I think that your upgrade path loses existing revisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 03:39 : drumm I think this is the proper way to do things. No columns are duplicated, there is no serialized data, and only the fields that are logically revised are stored. Nothing jumped out at me as a way to have my node modules be able to keep a table of revisions of additional fields. I'm guessing this could be done within the confines of _insert and _update. Assuming the upgrade path works and modules can extend it I give it a +1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 15:40 : Nick Nassar It figures that just as I finish a big patch, another patch comes along and breaks it. Oh well, it should be a pretty easy to fix. I'll work on it. Fixing the upgrade path to keep revisions should be fairly painless. I found another issue that needs to be fixed before this patch gets merged. There format of a node needs to be stored for each revision. Otherwise, for modules that store a format for the nodes, such as page and book, if you write one revision in PHP and the next in HTML, the PHP revision will be displayed as HTML. This is part of a larger issue of how node modules should store revisions of additional fields. I think each module that wants to do this should create another table with (nid, revid) as the primary key. Just as when they want to add fields to a node they create another table with nid as the primary key. As far as performance goes, for sites that make heavy use of revisions, an extra join on primary keys is going to be a lot faster than grabbing all of the revisions from that database everytime. We would need to run benchmarks to determine is the overall difference in speed is for an average site is a gain or a loss. I'm guessing it's very minor either way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 14:55 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_08-23-2004.p… (10.92 KB) Here's an updated patch against CVS that puts revisions in their own table, provides an upgrade path, and fixes the format related bugs in the last patch. Hopefully, this can make it into CVS as soon as the freeze is over. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 15:10 : moshe weitzman Interesting patch ... drumm's question is still outstanding. how do modules store revisions of their fields? Are they expected to manage this on their own? Thats not how it works today. As an aside, i am seeing profile_ fields in my node.revisions column. One could argue that those need not be saved. They pertain to the node author, not to the node itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 17:14 : Nick Nassar Having modules be responsible for storing revisions of their own fields is a side-effect of storing revision data in tables. There's really no way around it. However, revisions generally don't make sense for node types that don't have PHP/HTML content, such as polls. I think it's going to be a pretty rare scenario for a new node type to want another field to change per-revision, so it's a pretty good trade-off. Storing fields that shouldn't be part of revisions, such as the profile_ fields, is a side-effect of storing revisions as serialized objects. Applying this patch will free up that wasted space. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 18:20 : Anonymous There should be a hook that let's the module choose whether it supports history. This way a module author can prevent the user from doing something that may break his module or just cause undefined behavior. If the module doesn't support history then don't let the user/admin choose to add history to nodes of that type. Craig ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 20:23 : Nick Nassar I agree, there should be an API change to make specifying support for revisions easier. In the interests of keeping patches small and keeping to one change per patch, I think the API change should be a separate issue. A sort of ad-hoc API to decide whether or not a module supports revisions by default already exists. Instead of having a hook, modules set the default value of the "Create new revision" field in the edit form. The admin can change this option in admin/node/configure/defaults. This patch doesn't change that. Revisions are broken for node types that have their own database structure, like polls, even when storing them as serialized objects. This patch doesn't change that, either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 26, 2004 - 03:35 : moshe weitzman I'm guessing that someone is going to have to demonstrate that this patch performs as well as current drupal before it gets comitted. i think this patch is a few benchmarks from being comitted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 27, 2004 - 02:04 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004.p… (11 KB) I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 27, 2004 - 02:05 : Nick Nassar I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 27, 2004 - 02:05 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004.p… (11 KB) I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 15, 2004 - 06:05 : elias1884 please overthink the revision system default workflow as well. don't look at the revision system as an isolated system but as a part of the whole workflow system! if you combine revisions with the moderation queue the most logic default workflow would be like that: auth user creates node (revision #0) admin approves the node (status = 1, moderation = 0) => node publicly available auth user finds typo and changes node (revision #1, status = 0, moderation = 1) ------- what happens at that point at the moment is, that the node is not accessible anymore at all until the new revision is approved by admin. of course the new revision should not go online until reviewed and approved, this is absolutely correct, but there is no reason to not take the old revision offline, since it was already approved and should therefore be online until the new revision is approved. it is not practical if a node disappears only because the author corrected a typo. ------- admin approves the node (status = 1, moderation = 0) eventhough I first thought a plain boolean active field would not be capable of providing that functionality if finally came to the conclusion, that it can. The only thing to do is to not set that bit, when a new revision is created, but when it is approved (in case moderation is activated under default workflow). Every revision should have its own moderation, status and active field and on approval they are set like this (status=1, moderation=0, active=Y). When you wanna rollback to an old revision, you can chose between all revisions that already have the moderation bit set back to 0 again and the published to 1. There should be an extra permission for rollback! another concern that I have about the default workflow is, that users can't see the content, they have just created, when moderation is enabled. Eventhough, there is a big fat "submission accepted" presented after submissions, unexperienced users tend to question the information those stupid tincans give them, if they can't find their content afterwards. Many users are really lazy bastards and they don't even read the status messages. The best feedback about whether his story was submitted successfully or not of course is, if he can find the story somewhere on the site, maybe with a status message on top of it, mentioning, that the content is currently not publicly available since it has not been approved yet. there should be a my content section under my account, like somebody is trying to do with the workspace module I guess. so my suggestion is to make (status=0, moderation=1) still available for the creator under a my content section somewhere! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 24, 2004 - 05:21 : Nick Nassar I agree. The current workflow for moderation queues and revisions needs to change, but this patch isn't the place for it. The patch is already too big, and it only does the backend stuff. Instead of adding more to this patch and making it take even longer to get into core, would you mind creating a new issue for your UI suggestions, so the those changes can be added as a separate patch? Thanks, Nick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 13:26 : Dries This patch is _much_ needed so I'd love to see someone revive it. In order for this patch to be accepted, the following needs to be done: Update this patch to CVS HEAD. Rename revid to vid. Rename node_rev to node_revisions. Rename node_rev.changed to node_revisions.timestamp. Rename $rnode to $revision. Fix the coding style to match Drupal's: proper spacing, single quotes where possible, proper variable names. Benchmark this patch with a large database with enough revisions. I'd be happy to benchmark this on my local copy of the drupal.org database. The book.log field should probably move to the node_revisions table. This can be done in a separate patch. Investigate whether transactions are well-supported. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 01:25 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004-r… (11.02 KB) I've worked a bit on the patch (coding style issues as mentioned by Dries). One thing I noticed is that the patch uses REPLACE. IIRC this needs to be chagned to "UPDATE, if fail INSERT" for pgsql compatibility. Nick, are you still interested in working on that patch? I'd like to know how it works on your site and work on getting it into core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 13:33 : Dries Gerhard: your patch does not apply. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 18:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org Yes, I know, that was the same version as I mailed to you earlier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 22:02 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions.patch (52.96 KB) Ok, upüdated the patch to cvs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 09:58 : Dries Some more comments: db_begin_transaction() and db_end_transaction() do not belong in database.inc, but in database.mysql.inc and database.pgsql.inc respectively. The node module calls node_revisionsision_list() which is not defined. (Fxed that on my local copy.) Do db_begin_transaction() and db_end_transaction() deprecate Jeremy's table locking patch? The upgrade path assigns the wrong user ID to each revision. The upgrade path assigns the wrong date to each revision (that or a node's revision page shows the wrong usernames/dates). The coding style needs a bit of work, but we can worry about that later. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 18:34 : Nick Nassar If you need any help getting those things fixed, just let me know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 18:50 : Nick Nassar How this relates to Jeremy's node locking patch: There was lots of discussion, and node locking was decided against because from an end user point of view you never want a node to be locked. He's now advocating for a much simpler patch that warns users if their changes will overwrite someone elses. That patch still has a race condition, which might be fixed using db_begin_transaction(). http://drupal.org/node/6025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 23:26 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_0.patch (55.96 KB) Here is an updated patch that tries to address Dries concerns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 15, 2004 - 09:32 : Dries Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions-bug.png (76.06 KB) It didn't fix the aforementioned bugs. See attached screenshot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 6, 2005 - 21:15 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_1.patch (51.77 KB) Ok, here is a new version. Dries and myself worked hart at it, so please have a look. what is still missing - database upgrades for the core modules with an own table - contrib modules need an upgrade too. - do we need nid and vid in both the node and the node_revisions table? - the amount of sql queries means a good stress testing for large databases. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/7582 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/7582

1 0

[drupal-devel] RE: drupal-devel Digest, Vol 25, Issue 99
by Michael Jervis 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

Tim: >You can find my current work in my sandbox. Hmm, well, you may be known enough in drupal for others to find your sand box, but I'm drawing a blank here. No taltman, tim or altman or other obviously named sandbox sub-dir. >If at all possible, we should use the same framework for importation >scripts, so it's easy to make a new importer plug-in. If you have a framework, I'd like to take a look, so if you could point me the right way. Cheers, Mike

1 0

Re: [drupal-devel] Introduction and Questions
by Steven Wittens 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

>I've read the contributors guide, which states I should "and then notify the >contributions manager to request a review of your work before posting". I >can't see anything that tells me how to go about this, so I am assuming the >method is to post to the list? Should I check into contributions before >review to have it somewhere to be reviewed, or post it in some other form >somewhere? Or does "before posting" mean before filling in the form to list >under modules? > >I have attached the module in a RAR, I hope this won't cause too much >offence, it is less than 1kb. > Yeah the "contributions manager" thing should probably be changed to something clearer. You can commit anything you think is reasonable into the contrib repository (and of course within the rules), but it won't show up on Drupal.org until you create a project and have it approved by one of the people with the mojo to do this. Your module seems okay, granted it's also very short ;). I have two comments: - You search for the string "livejournal" in the server name, which would include more than the real livejournal.com. Using a regexp anchored to the end is probably a better idea (e.g. '/livejournal\.com$/i'). Granted, this issue will probably never pop up, but it's still nice to be exact. - There are a couple of things that don't fit the Drupal code style (a couple of spaces and a brace). This doesn't matter for the contributions repository, as they are not required there, but if you plan on submitting core patches later, it might be a good idea to start with good habits. If you want a review next time, it's probably best to just commit it to the repository and ask on this list. The people here are almost all developers, so keep that in mind. If you want to reach general Drupal users, try the forums instead. As far as attachments go, if they are small (like yours) then it's acceptable, though I would suggest using .tar.gz or .zip instead of .rar as they are more widespread. Steven Wittens

2 2

[drupal-devel] [bug] Inconsistent behavior of URL aliases in user-specified paths
by JonBob 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: base system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: JonBob Reported by: JonBob Updated by: JonBob -Status: active +Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/menu_17.patch (781 bytes) Here's a patch to bring the menu system in line with #5, which seems to be the user expectation. Any advice on where to document the appropriate behavior for modules? Perhaps the PHPdoc for drupal_get_path_alias()? JonBob Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 23, 2004 - 08:14 : JonBob Currently Drupal is rather schizophrenic when it comes to handling user-specified paths. We don't require the user to type in paths often, which is good, but there are a few situations where this is unavoidable. Examples are menu administration, settings for 403/404 pages, the front page selection, and block path regular expressions. In these locations, there is no clear policy for whether the user is expected to enter an aliased or real Drupal path, and we certainly don't tell the user in the help text. We should decide on a policy, document it in the code and/or user help, and enforce it in the modules. The possible policies I can imagine are: 1) Require the user to enter a real Drupal path. 2) Require the user to enter an aliased path. 3) Allow the user to enter either, but always store a real Drupal path. 4) Allow the user to enter either, but always store an aliased path. 5) Allow the user to enter either, store what the user entered, and convert at read time. Now 1 and 3 have the advantage that if the alias for a page changes, links to that page in the various settings pages do not break. 2 and 4, on the other hand, allow the administrator to affect what page a setting refers to by simply changing a path alias, which could be construed as good behavior. 3 and 4 have the downside of possibly presenting the admin with different information than she entered when she goes back to edit it later. 5 is the most permissive, but is the hardest policy to enforce because the value could be read in many different places in the code. Also, with 5 the behavior is like 1 and 3 if the user enters a real path or 2 and 4 if the user enters an alias. This is good because it allows the administrator to have the behavior she wants, but bad because it is inconsistent. What policy should we go with? I'm leaning toward either 3 or 5. Once we decide, I will: - Add documentation about the decision in the code - Change existing usage to match the decision - Update user documentation on the administration pages (probably only necessary with approach 1 or 2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 23, 2004 - 10:11 : JonBob Another note: policies 3 and 4 will not work with block paths, as we cannot reliably convert the regex to the appropriate form. With these, we must perform any necessary conversion on the path that is being matched against the regex instead of on the regex itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 27, 2004 - 11:15 : JonBob The issue Xtemplate mission does not work with an alias [1] is really a part of this one. [1] http://drupal.org/node/view/7685 -- View: http://drupal.org/node/9477 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/9477

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Implement google's rel="nofollow"
by walkah 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

Project: Drupal Version: 4.5.0 Component: filter.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: walkah Reported by: walkah Updated by: walkah Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/filter-no-follow.patch (1.74 KB) google just announced a new attribute rel="nofollow" in an attempt to combat comment spam. the attached patch adds the option to add rel="nofollow" as part of HTML Filter for more info check: http://www.google.com/googleblog/2005/01/preventing-comment-spam.html walkah -- View: http://drupal.org/node/15847 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/15847

5 6

[drupal-devel] Release critical bugs for January 19, 2005
by drupal-devel＠drupal.org 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

Bbcode / bug reports email spam filtering does not "see" email addresses when they are NOT preceded by a word age: 3 days 23 hours url: http://drupal.org/node/15654 Chatbox / support requests Cron run kills Chat? age: 6 weeks 1 day url: http://drupal.org/node/14032 Drupal / bug reports updates.inc deleting profile_data when updating age: 3 days 7 hours url: http://drupal.org/node/15686 Change to sesssion.inc violates UID database constraint age: 3 days 17 hours url: http://drupal.org/node/15666 problem with forum.module with postgresql v7.4.1 age: 1 week 2 days url: http://drupal.org/node/15412 forum.module problem with postgresql v7.4.1 age: 1 week 2 days url: http://drupal.org/node/15411 postgresql error age: 1 week 6 days url: http://drupal.org/node/15175 UID 0, anonymous user account deleted age: 6 weeks 3 days url: http://drupal.org/node/13915 Styles broken after multisite patch assigned: TDobes age: 7 weeks 9 hours url: http://drupal.org/node/13738 Entering an empty title broke drupal age: 9 weeks 1 day url: http://drupal.org/node/12974 Argument NOT must be type boolean age: 9 weeks 2 days url: http://drupal.org/node/12950 Need to clear caches after running update.php age: 11 weeks 3 days url: http://drupal.org/node/12350 Private downloads aren't working age: 11 weeks 5 days url: http://drupal.org/node/12267 Comments in approval queue still show up in tracker age: 13 weeks 4 days url: http://drupal.org/node/11647 Drupal / feature requests Xtr3's Feature Requests age: 1 day 7 hours url: http://drupal.org/node/15768 User info exposed to anonymous user age: 7 weeks 4 days url: http://drupal.org/node/13545 Allow named anchors to work without specifying full path to node age: 1 year 8 weeks url: http://drupal.org/node/4213 Drupal / support requests Problem with Forums age: 1 week 4 days url: http://drupal.org/node/15299 /?q=admin/modules doesnt work for me! age: 8 weeks 4 days url: http://drupal.org/node/13193 Drupal / tasks atom.module working version to 4.5.0 assigned: hugoromano age: 11 weeks 3 hours url: http://drupal.org/node/12496 Postgres Compatibility Update assigned: adrian age: 17 weeks 2 days url: http://drupal.org/node/10945 file.inc code review assigned: Stefan age: 39 weeks 2 days url: http://drupal.org/node/7235 Drupal.org maintenance / bug reports Do not use "fixed" as default status for issues on drupal.org! age: 12 weeks 6 days url: http://drupal.org/node/11817 I can not add a release of Chinese Simplified Translation. age: 13 weeks 7 hours url: http://drupal.org/node/11770 Event / bug reports search over fields.inc fields conceptual error age: 11 weeks 5 days url: http://drupal.org/node/12259 fields.inc screws up with multible multiselect fields age: 11 weeks 5 days url: http://drupal.org/node/12257 Still GMT/TZ issues with CVS age: 12 weeks 5 days url: http://drupal.org/node/11870 Time entry is GMT even when site default is not age: 13 weeks 4 days url: http://drupal.org/node/11630 Start Time of Event is NOT Preserved age: 30 weeks 6 days url: http://drupal.org/node/8565 Feature / bug reports Menu item not showing age: 15 weeks 5 days url: http://drupal.org/node/11210 File / bug reports segmentation fault related to filestore age: 1 year 16 weeks url: http://drupal.org/node/3001 Filestore / support requests File store module - Overwriting Filename....Help needed assigned: harishkm age: 42 weeks 8 hours url: http://drupal.org/node/6827 Unserialize error at line 104 age: 48 weeks 5 days url: http://drupal.org/node/5857 Filestore module- sql errors rectified assigned: harishkm age: 50 weeks 13 hours url: http://drupal.org/node/5619 Problems in Filestore2 module assigned: harishkm age: 51 weeks 8 hours url: http://drupal.org/node/5458 Filestore Module Problems unaddressed assigned: harishkm age: 51 weeks 5 days url: http://drupal.org/node/5365 Groups / bug reports Drupal-4.4-rc breaks registration setups and groups.module age: 44 weeks 5 days url: http://drupal.org/node/6392 Image / bug reports Image.Module does not know the correct filename age: 9 weeks 1 day url: http://drupal.org/node/13032 SAFE MODE Restriction in effect... age: 12 weeks 6 days url: http://drupal.org/node/11843 Uploading jpeg makes Imagemagick do high compression age: 14 weeks 3 days url: http://drupal.org/node/11445 Image module failing on Preview because of a blank node id age: 16 weeks 4 days url: http://drupal.org/node/11069 Similar problem with Directory Upload Slow age: 16 weeks 4 days url: http://drupal.org/node/11064 Node Aggregator / bug reports Import doesn't like XML/RSS feeds with no Title element age: 33 weeks 4 days url: http://drupal.org/node/8128 Node Aggregator / feature requests RSS items overwriting edited items age: 31 weeks 4 days url: http://drupal.org/node/8455 Notify / feature requests Notify.module ignores the true submission queue age: 1 year 12 weeks url: http://drupal.org/node/3765 Pdfview / feature requests Internationalization support for PDF assigned: TheLibrarian age: 42 weeks 1 day url: http://drupal.org/node/6795 Project / bug reports "Page Not Found" when trying to view issues or add new release age: 6 weeks 5 days url: http://drupal.org/node/13815 Project pages display only title and description age: 8 weeks 6 days url: http://drupal.org/node/13082 Fatal error: Cannot use string offset as an array in includes/tablesort.inc on line 113 assigned: publian age: 15 weeks 6 days url: http://drupal.org/node/11187 Issued assigned to "unassigned" not being displayed. age: 18 weeks 3 days url: http://drupal.org/node/10744 Can't create new project with issue tracker age: 22 weeks 12 hours url: http://drupal.org/node/10148 Project / support requests Help with everything - nothing seems to work in the latest build age: 8 weeks 2 days url: http://drupal.org/node/13310 TrackBack / bug reports Overly aggressive age: 6 weeks 4 days url: http://drupal.org/node/13865 trackback borks google and every other search engine age: 11 weeks 2 days url: http://drupal.org/node/12388

1 0

[drupal-devel] cvs log messages
by no-reply＠zind.net 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

File: /modules/filter.module 1.50 Date: January 19, 2005 - 16:35 User: dries - Patch #15847 by James: added rel="nofollow" support. This is implemented as a filter so it can be enabled/disabled on a per-role basis (eg. some people might want to enable this for anonymous users but not for authenticated users). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /CHANGELOG.txt 1.59 /database/database.mysql 1.166 /database/database.pgsql 1.102 /database/updates.inc 1.81 /modules/taxonomy.module 1.169 Date: January 19, 2005 - 16:22 User: dries - Patch #6847 by Gerhard: replaced vocabulary->nodes by a separate table and tidied up the taxonomy API a bit. This fixes a number of issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/wmfilter/wmfilter.sql 1.8 Date: January 19, 2005 - 15:23 User: ahynes1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/statistics.module 1.182 Date: January 19, 2005 - 12:01 User: unconed - Bad quote ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/captcha/captcha.module 1.8 /modules/captcha/README.txt 1.6 Date: January 19, 2005 - 10:25 User: arnabdotorg ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/captcha/captcha.module 1.7 Date: January 19, 2005 - 05:31 User: arnabdotorg Fixed bug #15808 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/ecommerce/store/store.module 1.33 Date: January 19, 2005 - 02:49 User: mathias ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/ecommerce/store/store.module 1.22.2.9 DRUPAL-4-5 Date: January 19, 2005 - 02:49 User: mathias ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/ecommerce/store/store.module 1.32 Date: January 19, 2005 - 02:31 User: mathias * Only display the 'View your order history link' for owner of the transaction. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/ecommerce/store/store.module 1.22.2.8 DRUPAL-4-5 Date: January 19, 2005 - 02:31 User: mathias * Only display the 'View your order history link' for owner of the transaction. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/node.module 1.446 Date: January 19, 2005 - 01:51 User: unconed - Another code style fix. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/comment.module 1.327 /modules/forum.module 1.222 /modules/node.module 1.445 /modules/poll.module 1.154 /modules/statistics.module 1.181 /modules/taxonomy.module 1.168 /modules/tracker.module 1.108 Date: January 19, 2005 - 01:46 User: unconed - Fix tracker pager count query being wrong (it did not return a count but a set, and it counted nodes with more than 1 comment as multiple nodes). - Clean up various SQL queries: removing literally inserted data (db_escape_string is evil!), fixing single "%" which should be "%%", fixing integers being compared as strings. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /translations/it/aggregator-module.po 1.9 Date: January 19, 2005 - 01:17 User: michelef Drupal 4.5.2 translation; ongoing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/node.module 1.444 /modules/tracker.module 1.107 Date: January 19, 2005 - 01:12 User: unconed - #15500: Fix tracker not showing nodes without comments. - Tiny code style fix ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/tracker.module 1.100.2.2 DRUPAL-4-5 Date: January 19, 2005 - 01:10 User: unconed #15500: Fix tracker not showing nodes without comments. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /translations/it/locale-module.po 1.9 Date: January 19, 2005 - 01:00 User: michelef Drupal 4.5.2 translation; ongoing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /translations/it/node-module.po 1.7 Date: January 19, 2005 - 00:59 User: michelef Drupal 4.5.2 translation; ongoing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /translations/it/user-module.po 1.11 Date: January 19, 2005 - 00:58 User: michelef Drupal 4.5.2 translation; ongoing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /translations/it/watchdog-module.po 1.5 Date: January 19, 2005 - 00:53 User: michelef Drupal 4.5.2 translation; complete. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/copyright/copyright.module 1.6 Date: January 19, 2005 - 00:09 User: veridicus Replace check_query with db_escape_string ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/copyright/copyright.css 1.2 /modules/copyright/copyright.module 1.5 Date: January 18, 2005 - 23:55 User: veridicus - Edit of node license only allowed by node author or "administer copyright" permission - Moved all display formatting into CSS - Made the CSS styling a little nicer - Load node license info at the point it's required to fix form problems ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/autopath/autopath.module 1.1 /modules/autopath/README.txt 1.1 Date: January 18, 2005 - 23:54 User: mikeryan autopath module - automatically generates URL aliases from a node's title ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/copyright/CHANGELOG.txt 1.2 Date: January 18, 2005 - 23:53 User: veridicus Listed changes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/copyright/README.txt 1.2 Date: January 18, 2005 - 23:53 User: veridicus Adjusted text and added my name ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/contact_dir/README.txt 1.2 Date: January 18, 2005 - 22:21 User: latpro ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/contact_dir/contact_dir.mysql.sql 1.1 Date: January 18, 2005 - 22:21 User: latpro ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/contact_dir/contact_dir.module 1.1 /modules/contact_dir/fields.inc 1.1 /modules/contact_dir/README.txt 1.1 Date: January 18, 2005 - 21:56 User: latpro ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/week/week.module 1.2 Date: January 18, 2005 - 21:55 User: prometheus6 Add that macro tag ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/week/week.module 1.1 /modules/week/WEEK.txt 1.1 Date: January 18, 2005 - 21:50 User: prometheus6 Initial version ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/taxonomy_block/taxonomy_block.module 1.1.2.3 DRUPAL-4-5 Date: January 18, 2005 - 19:54 User: crunchywelch update node view url syntax to 4.5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/taxonomy_block/taxonomy_block.module 1.3 Date: January 18, 2005 - 19:49 User: crunchywelch update node view url syntax to 4.5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/mail_archive/ma_gzip/ma_blogit.module NONE /modules/mail_archive/ma_gzip/README.txt 1.3 Date: January 18, 2005 - 17:19 User: jeremy cleanup CVS accident (restoring README, removing blogit) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/mail_archive/ma_blogit/ma_blogit.module 1.1 /modules/mail_archive/ma_blogit/README.txt 1.1 Date: January 18, 2005 - 17:17 User: jeremy initial commit (user error put this in wrong directory earlier) ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

[drupal-devel] rewrite node queries
by Dries Buytaert 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

I just committed chx's node query rewrite patch. If your module queries the node table, you might want to look into issue #14731 (http://drupal.org/node/14731) and update your module accordingly. In short, you should no longer use node_access_join_sql() or node_access_where_sql() but wrap your query in a call to node_rewrite_sql(). I hope chx will update the upgrade-page in the module developers guide. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/

6 8