February 2005 - Development - lists.drupal.org

Re: [drupal-devel] settings inconsistencies
by Boris Mann 02 Feb '05

02 Feb '05

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:58:51 +0100, Steven Wittens <steven(a)acko.net> wrote: > A bit late, but here's the rationale. People didn't look for profiles > under users -> configure as it was buried to deep. It is hard to notice > that something has popped up that deep when you've just enabled the > module. Making it a higher level item is handier to use. > Also, IMO setting up profiles does not have a direct relation to the > user objects. It's the filling in/editing of a single user's profile > itself that I would classify under "users" rather than setting up the > fields. I think many admins will think the same. Yes, I agree -- profile configuration was much too deep. I actually find myself doing way too much "URL hacking" rather than using the admin menus to navigate. A big problem of this is depth, and why (for the admin menu only perhaps) we need to consider some sort of drop down/fold out menu. Actually, I'd love to split the "Admin" tree into a block separate from the Navigation block. -- Boris Mann http://www.bryght.com

1 0

[drupal-devel] [task] Put revisions in their own table
by killes 02 Feb '05

02 Feb '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_11.patch (48.95 KB) The update issue still needs investigating. This patch is updated for cvs. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 00:33 : killes(a)www.drop.org 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 01:05 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_4.patch (30 KB) Another revision. Steven didn't like my literal $node->vid in queries. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 02:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org - 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. These issues are still open, btw. Especially the first one needs to be tackled. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 25, 2005 - 21:11 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_5.patch (51.13 KB) Here is a patch that has the database tables updated for forum, book, and page module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 29, 2005 - 23:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_6.patch (49.18 KB) Yet another update to keep it working with head. The patch now also removes the table definitons for the page table. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 29, 2005 - 23:57 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_7.patch (55.69 KB) Sorry, that was the old version, this is the right one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 20:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_8.patch (55.71 KB) Updated once more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 21:52 : Dries Anyone to help review/test this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 22:22 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_9.patch (49.29 KB) Updated again, the update functions occurred twice. Thanks Bart. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 01:27 : killes(a)www.drop.org Don't know if the db I am using is corrupted or what. I still do have some didficulties. The latest patch is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 01:27 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_10.patch (49.67 KB) I am probably slowly going mad ... -- View: http://drupal.org/node/7582 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/7582

1 0

[drupal-devel] [task] Put revisions in their own table
by killes 02 Feb '05

02 Feb '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_10.patch (49.67 KB) I am probably slowly going mad ... 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 00:33 : killes(a)www.drop.org 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 01:05 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_4.patch (30 KB) Another revision. Steven didn't like my literal $node->vid in queries. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 02:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org - 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. These issues are still open, btw. Especially the first one needs to be tackled. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 25, 2005 - 21:11 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_5.patch (51.13 KB) Here is a patch that has the database tables updated for forum, book, and page module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 29, 2005 - 23:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_6.patch (49.18 KB) Yet another update to keep it working with head. The patch now also removes the table definitons for the page table. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 29, 2005 - 23:57 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_7.patch (55.69 KB) Sorry, that was the old version, this is the right one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 20:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_8.patch (55.71 KB) Updated once more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 21:52 : Dries Anyone to help review/test this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 22:22 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_9.patch (49.29 KB) Updated again, the update functions occurred twice. Thanks Bart. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 01:27 : killes(a)www.drop.org Don't know if the db I am using is corrupted or what. I still do have some didficulties. The latest patch is attached. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/7582 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/7582

1 0

[drupal-devel] [task] Put revisions in their own table
by killes 02 Feb '05

02 Feb '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 Don't know if the db I am using is corrupted or what. I still do have some didficulties. The latest patch is attached. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 00:33 : killes(a)www.drop.org 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 01:05 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_4.patch (30 KB) Another revision. Steven didn't like my literal $node->vid in queries. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 02:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org - 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. These issues are still open, btw. Especially the first one needs to be tackled. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 25, 2005 - 21:11 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_5.patch (51.13 KB) Here is a patch that has the database tables updated for forum, book, and page module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 29, 2005 - 23:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_6.patch (49.18 KB) Yet another update to keep it working with head. The patch now also removes the table definitons for the page table. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 29, 2005 - 23:57 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_7.patch (55.69 KB) Sorry, that was the old version, this is the right one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 20:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_8.patch (55.71 KB) Updated once more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 21:52 : Dries Anyone to help review/test this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 22:22 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_9.patch (49.29 KB) Updated again, the update functions occurred twice. Thanks Bart. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/7582 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/7582

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Problems with using relative path names
by Goba 02 Feb '05

02 Feb '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: base system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: kbahey Updated by: Goba Status: patch Well, speaking of skip navigation links, phptemplate and xtemplate should expose the REQUEST_URI to the templates, so when a link to an anchor on the same page is needed, the link can be formatted with the complete request URI in mind. Goba Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 19, 2004 - 04:29 : kbahey Looking at my site's logs, there seem to be several problems that are caused by Drupal's use of relative path names. If Drupal causes all the site's urls to be absolute, then none of this would be an issue. A. Search Engine Crawlers Getting lots of 404s on things like: linux/index.html/robots.txt Where 'linux' is an alias to a taxonomy, and 'index.html' is an alias to a node within that taxonomy. Another example, is recursing unnecessarily. I see 404s on things like: /linux/index.html/linux/index.html Where 'linux' is a path alias for a taxonomy term, and 'index.html' is an alias to the main node within it. This does not seem to happen when Google crawls my sites, but Yahoo's Slurp suffers from this problem, and keeps recursing. MSNBot also suffers from this. Another crawler/harvester called Blinkx/DFS-Fetch keeps adding the .css file to the relative path, getting a 404 on things like: /linux/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/logo.gif And Fast Search Engine also attempts to access: /linux/contact/tracker/tracker/user/password The same goes for grub.org, another crawler. B. Google Cache / Archive Way Back Machine Pages in Google cache and archive.org Way Back Machine suffer form a similar problem: the .css files cannot be found, and hence rendering of the pages is not correct. Examples: Compare this: http://www.drupal.org/node/4647 To this: http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:www.drupal.org/node/view/4647 Notice the following: How there is no formatting at all, because of the lack of a .css file The httpd log on Drupal will show errors for: linux/themes/pushbutton/style.css and linux/misc/drupal.css Also see: http://web.archive.org/web/20031016184902/http://www.drupal.org/ C. Proxy Caches: When someone is browsing my site from behind a proxy cache, the web site is hit with a rapid succession of requests, and many of it is just for bogus pages. Examples: 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/user/1 not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/feedback not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/tracker not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/sitemap not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/search not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/misc not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/programming not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/programming not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/linux not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/technology not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/writings not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/family not found. And also: 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/user/1 not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/tracker not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/feedback not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/sitemap not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/search not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/misc not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/technology not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/science not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:22 404 error: history/history not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:22 404 error: history/writings not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:22 404 error: history/family not found. As you can tell, history and linux are aliases to taxonomy terms, and so is misc, technology, writings, family, ...etc. The user agent is appending the taxonomy term alias to the url and forming a new URL. D. Regular Browsing: There is even at least one extreme case where the following URL was accessed (the result was 404 of course) /book/view/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/logo.gif It seems it was a normal user, because the user agent is: "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.90)" Proposed Solution: As a proposed solution, all URLs in Drupal can be made into absolute path names. This can be done by the following: The variable $base_url in the conf.php file is broken down into two components: $base_host (the 'http://whatever-host.example.com' part WITHOUT the trailing slash) $base_path (the '/path-to-drupal' part, WITH the leading slash. If this is the DocumentRoot, then it is just a '/' character) $base_url is now $base_host concatenated with $base_path A simple filter can be written to preceed every href="path" with the $base_path variable, so it becomes "/path" This option can be turned on and off for a site. The default is to have it off so current behavior is maintained. A similar scheme applies for style sheets as well. So, did I miss something obvious? Am I seriously off the mark? Your thoughts! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 20, 2004 - 05:10 : chrisada I am getting similar 404 errors, mainly from rss feed link that looks like /blog/blog/feed and many manual links that are relative to drupal root. It was not a problem before Drupal 4.5, so I think there might not be a need to change all URIs to absolute. I can't see where the problem is coming from though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 20, 2004 - 05:35 : kbahey I am pretty sure that these problems were happening for at least the past 10 months (ever since I moved to Drupal in January 2004). The main issue here is that crawlers and other user agents get confused by the relative path names. Using absolute paths will definitely solve this. However, is this the only solution? I am looking for a discussion of this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 20, 2004 - 10:55 : Goba No absolute paths please. Having the path start with '/' solves all the mentioned problems, and is not absolute, it is relative to the domain. Sadly some crawlers and even the Google Cache does not obey to the base href. I have reported this cache problem in April to Google, and they promised they will keep it in mind... Hehe... What we need is to have the printed relative path values relative to the domain name, and not relative to the Drupal installation path. Note that this issue will appear on the drupal devel mailing list if someone finally provides a patch we can talk about :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 20, 2004 - 11:19 : Dries Goba is right. We need paths relative to the domain name to fix this 'problem'. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 20, 2004 - 21:19 : kbahey Sorry for not making my self clear. When I said absolute, I meant that they start with just a /. I did NOT mean that they start with http://host.example.com. That would be a very bad idea. In any case, what do people think about the proposed solution (breaking down $base_url into two parts?) Also, does this address the style sheets as well, or more is needed? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 21, 2004 - 17:24 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common_inc_patch.txt (471 bytes) I have implemented what Goba suggested. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 21, 2004 - 17:43 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common_inc_patch_0.txt (825 bytes) Maybe this one is faster? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 21, 2004 - 18:34 : kbahey Man! You are fast! I tried the second version. It works fine for things that are not inside the node body, I mean they have a / in front of them, as we want it to be. Two comments/issues: - If there is a URL that is already "/" representing the home page, it gets set to "//". Perhaps it should check for that case? - URLs in nodes that do not start with / do not get changed to have a / prepended to them. Do we need a filter for this? - Do we need to do something for the style sheets in the page header? I mean the "misc/drupal.css" and "themes/themename/style.css"? Thanks ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 22, 2004 - 01:28 : kbahey Hi chx Here is a fix for the case where you have a url that is just "/". In your patch, instead of: <?php $base = $parts['path'] . '/' ; ?> Replace that by: <?php $base = ( $path == '/' ? $base : $parts['path'] . '/' ); ?> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 28, 2004 - 05:08 : kbahey Did this patch make it into CVS yet? If there are any objections to it, can someone please explain what they are? Thanks ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 28, 2004 - 10:33 : Dries Shouldn't your changes be included in the patch? Also, it's better to cache $base rather than $parts. Lastly, it this patch makes it to HEAD, we should probably remove some 'base url' cruft from the themes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 28, 2004 - 19:54 : kbahey Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/x.diff (1 KB) Here is the patch including my fix. I am asking chx to comment on caching $base instead of $parts. Will this make it faster? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 28, 2004 - 20:26 : chx Hm. $base = ( $path == '/' ? $base : $parts['path'] . '/' ); this depends on path which is a parameter. Thus I fail to see how could we cache $base. I'd correct this code however $base = ( $path == '/' ? '' : $parts['path'] . '/' ); 'cos I think $base is not defined before, but this is not a problem, PHP will be happy to replace NULL with NULL... Maybe instead of all parts, only $parts['path'] is enough to be cached, yes, but the performance and memory usage difference -- I guess -- would not be noticable... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 29, 2004 - 00:06 : kbahey Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common-inc-patch.txt (1 KB) OK. I put in chx suggested change. This patch can go in CVS then, to rid us of the problems with paths not beginning with slash. This is not an ultimate solution still. We need to address the problem with .css files. Although the header contains a: <base href="http://example.com" /> it does not seem that major search engines and archiving sites obey it anyway. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 2, 2004 - 21:31 : Dries Your coding style needs work. Also, I'm not going to commit this unless the themes get fixed up: we'd end up with invalid URLs all over the place. Lastly, I wonder how portable the themes will be when Drupal is run from within a subdirectory. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 2, 2004 - 22:15 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common_inc_patch_1.txt (849 bytes) Well, my patch worked from a subdirectory very well, as fact, I have not tested it from the root dir. And I think that it adheres to coding standards. So I resubmit it with the root path fix. However, my Drupal work is focused on i18n these days, and I was never into themeing so it won't be me who fixes those. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 2, 2004 - 23:07 : kbahey I have tested the previous patch (including my fix) with drupal installed in the DocumentRoot of the server. So, in effect, it is tested with both Drupal in / and Drupal in a subdirectory. This change fixes the problem for the crawlers and other browsers from getting confused. While it is true that there is no fix for the .css files in the HTML head section yet, this fix deals with a major part of the problem, and rids us of a major pain. Check your web server's logs some time to see what I mean. Someone who is familiar with the themes can contribute a patch later. This patch and the future fix for themes are not mutually exclusive, so let it go in CVS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 9, 2004 - 16:31 : Goba Please commit this into Drupal core, this fix is badly needed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 14:00 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/base_url_kill.patch (4.34 KB) Well as noone have stepped in to fix this problem, I have tried to fix the themes also. themes.inc , xtemplate.engine and the bluemarine template is patched besides common.inc. Of course, more templates could follow, but first I'd like to see your opinions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 14:09 : Goba I don't think that removing <base> from the themes is a good idea, using $parts['path'] should be encouraged though before the files, which would fix the google cache problem, and would still keep the HTML size low. It would also help those, who save the file to find the originating site easier, since clicking on a non-pagelocal link would lead to the online version. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 17:03 : Steven Definitely -1 on removing the <base&gt tag or using absolute or root-relative URLs. This tag has been around for ages, and it is the only way to make clean URLs work without bloating in the code. FYI, "base" is (first?) mentioned in Berners-Lee's HTML 1.0 draft [1]. That's June 1993. As the amount of clean URL-using sites grows, the crawlers will have to be updated. Perhaps we could prevent crawlers from going too insane by 404ing for URLs with more than say 10 components? That would prevent the really crappy ones from hammering your site. I'm all for making the <base> tag easier to handle for the user (say, by including a filter to allow simple anchor links to work as most people expect them to), but we should keep Drupal-generated URLs clean and completely relative. [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 17:57 : kbahey The problem with css is this: The @import argument does not start with a /. This is simple to fix. We keep the "base" as it is today, but add the new variable: $base before it. So for a site where Drupal is installed in the DocumentRoot, all that will change is that /misc/drupal.css and /themes/themename/style.css will be preceded by a slash. For sites that use another path, that path will be prepended to the css file name. How about that? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 18:38 : Steven What exactly is the problem with the @import? As far as I know: - url() in stylesheets is interpreted relative to the base of the stylesheet, not the source document. - However, if the styles are inside an HTML document, through a style tag or style attribute, then the stylesheet's location is the same as the HTML document. - Thus, the stylesheet's base is the same as the base of the HTML document (which can be altered through the <base> tag). I just don't see why it is necessary. As far as I know, the only browser that has had problems resolving CSS urls properly was Netscape 4, which does not support @import at all, and which Drupal does not support either, because of its CSS usage. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 19:35 : kbahey The problem for stylesheets is as follows. I think it mainly affect crawlers and Google's cache. Say you have an installtion of Drupal in DocumentRoot. You then use url aliases, and put slashes in them. For example, you use news/general/2004-12-15.html for a node. That node still has misc/drupal.css and themes/pushbutton/style.css in the head section if the document. Crawlers get fooled by that and try to look for /news/general/misc/drupal.css and /news/general/themes/pushbutton/style.css, which don't exist. So, just prepending the new $base variable (in chx's patch) before the stylesheet @import argument would fix this issue. Assuming you are in DocumentRoot, then /misc and /themes would be used instead of just misc and themes. It would still be compliant with standards, be relative to the web site, and no ambiguous to anyone, be they crawler or browser. I hope it is clearer now. I think chx can change the patch to use the $base instead of $base_url everywhere, so as to avoid the host/domain name in the urls. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 22:36 : Steven But typical crawlers don't even pay attention to stylesheets, hence it wouldn't have much use for them. I just don't see why we should adjust to rare cases of buggy software. Reading out a base URL from an HTML document is dead easy, and on top of that it doesn't add more complexity as without the base tag, the document's URL is already an implicit base which has to be parsed anyway. I did not like it when we altered the <link&gt tag to accomodate buggy RSS readers and I certainly don't like it now, as this is even rarer. In both cases, it is not Drupal which is at fault. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 22:48 : kbahey Steven While I agree with most of what you said, the 404s show up in the logs enough to be a bother. Perhaps the original design of Drupal did not forsee that people will use url aliases to mimic directory/file hierarchies. Whether this was intended or not, it is the way many use Drupal today. It does not matter where the bug is (Drupal or the external world), as long as we can stop it ourselves, by adjusting our end of it. The fix is simple enough and does not break standards (if implemented as described with a leading / before the css). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 22:54 : Steven It does not break standards, but it does bloat the code in an ugly way. Why not send an e-mail to the owners of the crawlers and tell them to implement a standard that is nearly 10 years old [2] (RFC 1808)? Note that Google Cache now seems to correctly interpret base URLs [3] and even adds a <base> tag of its own. By the way, this problem has nothing to do with people using URL aliases or not, as for a browser the regular nested paths that Drupal uses (e.g. "node/1" is no different from aliases mimicking files "foo/bar.html"). [2] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1808.html [3] http://www.google.be/search?q=cache%3Awww.drupal.org&sourceid=mozilla-searc… ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 23:34 : Goba Steven, part of the problem is that Google cache does add a base href even if there is a base href in the document. Eg adds a <BASE HREF="http://drupal.org/node/13733"> on the plone comparision page cached. Now that since HTML does not allow more than one base tag [4] to be present, it is up to the browsers, to use the first or the last base value, or any of the base values on the page for that matter as the used base. So even pages displayed from the google cache will be buggy if a full relative path to the domain root is not specified, due to this problem. [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/sgml/dtd.html#head.content ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 18, 2005 - 08:14 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/base_url_kill_0.patch (4.75 KB) This one does not use the whole base_url only the path part of it. HTML bloat is kept at minimal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 00:33 : clairem Please please can this be done? It's a good idea in itself, but if using fully-qualified paths means we can get rid of the BASE HREF, then page anchors will work without having the overhead of a filter. That's be a huge bonus for those creating larger nodes, or who just want to be able to put a "skip navigation" link in their theme without having to abandon Xtemplate or PHPtemplate -- View: http://drupal.org/node/13148 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/13148

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Problems with using relative path names
by clairem 02 Feb '05

02 Feb '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: base system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: kbahey Updated by: clairem Status: patch Please please can this be done? It's a good idea in itself, but if using fully-qualified paths means we can get rid of the BASE HREF, then page anchors will work without having the overhead of a filter. That's be a huge bonus for those creating larger nodes, or who just want to be able to put a "skip navigation" link in their theme without having to abandon Xtemplate or PHPtemplate clairem Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 19, 2004 - 03:29 : kbahey Looking at my site's logs, there seem to be several problems that are caused by Drupal's use of relative path names. If Drupal causes all the site's urls to be absolute, then none of this would be an issue. A. Search Engine Crawlers Getting lots of 404s on things like: linux/index.html/robots.txt Where 'linux' is an alias to a taxonomy, and 'index.html' is an alias to a node within that taxonomy. Another example, is recursing unnecessarily. I see 404s on things like: /linux/index.html/linux/index.html Where 'linux' is a path alias for a taxonomy term, and 'index.html' is an alias to the main node within it. This does not seem to happen when Google crawls my sites, but Yahoo's Slurp suffers from this problem, and keeps recursing. MSNBot also suffers from this. Another crawler/harvester called Blinkx/DFS-Fetch keeps adding the .css file to the relative path, getting a 404 on things like: /linux/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/logo.gif And Fast Search Engine also attempts to access: /linux/contact/tracker/tracker/user/password The same goes for grub.org, another crawler. B. Google Cache / Archive Way Back Machine Pages in Google cache and archive.org Way Back Machine suffer form a similar problem: the .css files cannot be found, and hence rendering of the pages is not correct. Examples: Compare this: http://www.drupal.org/node/4647 To this: http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:www.drupal.org/node/view/4647 Notice the following: How there is no formatting at all, because of the lack of a .css file The httpd log on Drupal will show errors for: linux/themes/pushbutton/style.css and linux/misc/drupal.css Also see: http://web.archive.org/web/20031016184902/http://www.drupal.org/ C. Proxy Caches: When someone is browsing my site from behind a proxy cache, the web site is hit with a rapid succession of requests, and many of it is just for bogus pages. Examples: 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/user/1 not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/feedback not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/tracker not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/sitemap not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/search not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/misc not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/programming not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/programming not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/linux not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/technology not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/writings not found. 2004/11/17 - 17:47 404 error: linux/family not found. And also: 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/user/1 not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/tracker not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/feedback not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/sitemap not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/search not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/misc not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/technology not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:23 404 error: history/science not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:22 404 error: history/history not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:22 404 error: history/writings not found. 2004/11/17 - 07:22 404 error: history/family not found. As you can tell, history and linux are aliases to taxonomy terms, and so is misc, technology, writings, family, ...etc. The user agent is appending the taxonomy term alias to the url and forming a new URL. D. Regular Browsing: There is even at least one extreme case where the following URL was accessed (the result was 404 of course) /book/view/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/themes/xtemplate/pushbutton/logo.gif It seems it was a normal user, because the user agent is: "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.90)" Proposed Solution: As a proposed solution, all URLs in Drupal can be made into absolute path names. This can be done by the following: The variable $base_url in the conf.php file is broken down into two components: $base_host (the 'http://whatever-host.example.com' part WITHOUT the trailing slash) $base_path (the '/path-to-drupal' part, WITH the leading slash. If this is the DocumentRoot, then it is just a '/' character) $base_url is now $base_host concatenated with $base_path A simple filter can be written to preceed every href="path" with the $base_path variable, so it becomes "/path" This option can be turned on and off for a site. The default is to have it off so current behavior is maintained. A similar scheme applies for style sheets as well. So, did I miss something obvious? Am I seriously off the mark? Your thoughts! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 20, 2004 - 04:10 : chrisada I am getting similar 404 errors, mainly from rss feed link that looks like /blog/blog/feed and many manual links that are relative to drupal root. It was not a problem before Drupal 4.5, so I think there might not be a need to change all URIs to absolute. I can't see where the problem is coming from though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 20, 2004 - 04:35 : kbahey I am pretty sure that these problems were happening for at least the past 10 months (ever since I moved to Drupal in January 2004). The main issue here is that crawlers and other user agents get confused by the relative path names. Using absolute paths will definitely solve this. However, is this the only solution? I am looking for a discussion of this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 20, 2004 - 09:55 : Goba No absolute paths please. Having the path start with '/' solves all the mentioned problems, and is not absolute, it is relative to the domain. Sadly some crawlers and even the Google Cache does not obey to the base href. I have reported this cache problem in April to Google, and they promised they will keep it in mind... Hehe... What we need is to have the printed relative path values relative to the domain name, and not relative to the Drupal installation path. Note that this issue will appear on the drupal devel mailing list if someone finally provides a patch we can talk about :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 20, 2004 - 10:19 : Dries Goba is right. We need paths relative to the domain name to fix this 'problem'. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 20, 2004 - 20:19 : kbahey Sorry for not making my self clear. When I said absolute, I meant that they start with just a /. I did NOT mean that they start with http://host.example.com. That would be a very bad idea. In any case, what do people think about the proposed solution (breaking down $base_url into two parts?) Also, does this address the style sheets as well, or more is needed? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 21, 2004 - 16:24 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common_inc_patch.txt (471 bytes) I have implemented what Goba suggested. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 21, 2004 - 16:43 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common_inc_patch_0.txt (825 bytes) Maybe this one is faster? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 21, 2004 - 17:34 : kbahey Man! You are fast! I tried the second version. It works fine for things that are not inside the node body, I mean they have a / in front of them, as we want it to be. Two comments/issues: - If there is a URL that is already "/" representing the home page, it gets set to "//". Perhaps it should check for that case? - URLs in nodes that do not start with / do not get changed to have a / prepended to them. Do we need a filter for this? - Do we need to do something for the style sheets in the page header? I mean the "misc/drupal.css" and "themes/themename/style.css"? Thanks ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 22, 2004 - 00:28 : kbahey Hi chx Here is a fix for the case where you have a url that is just "/". In your patch, instead of: <?php $base = $parts['path'] . '/' ; ?> Replace that by: <?php $base = ( $path == '/' ? $base : $parts['path'] . '/' ); ?> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 28, 2004 - 04:08 : kbahey Did this patch make it into CVS yet? If there are any objections to it, can someone please explain what they are? Thanks ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 28, 2004 - 09:33 : Dries Shouldn't your changes be included in the patch? Also, it's better to cache $base rather than $parts. Lastly, it this patch makes it to HEAD, we should probably remove some 'base url' cruft from the themes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 28, 2004 - 18:54 : kbahey Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/x.diff (1 KB) Here is the patch including my fix. I am asking chx to comment on caching $base instead of $parts. Will this make it faster? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 28, 2004 - 19:26 : chx Hm. $base = ( $path == '/' ? $base : $parts['path'] . '/' ); this depends on path which is a parameter. Thus I fail to see how could we cache $base. I'd correct this code however $base = ( $path == '/' ? '' : $parts['path'] . '/' ); 'cos I think $base is not defined before, but this is not a problem, PHP will be happy to replace NULL with NULL... Maybe instead of all parts, only $parts['path'] is enough to be cached, yes, but the performance and memory usage difference -- I guess -- would not be noticable... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 28, 2004 - 23:06 : kbahey Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common-inc-patch.txt (1 KB) OK. I put in chx suggested change. This patch can go in CVS then, to rid us of the problems with paths not beginning with slash. This is not an ultimate solution still. We need to address the problem with .css files. Although the header contains a: <base href="http://example.com" /> it does not seem that major search engines and archiving sites obey it anyway. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 2, 2004 - 20:31 : Dries Your coding style needs work. Also, I'm not going to commit this unless the themes get fixed up: we'd end up with invalid URLs all over the place. Lastly, I wonder how portable the themes will be when Drupal is run from within a subdirectory. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 2, 2004 - 21:15 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common_inc_patch_1.txt (849 bytes) Well, my patch worked from a subdirectory very well, as fact, I have not tested it from the root dir. And I think that it adheres to coding standards. So I resubmit it with the root path fix. However, my Drupal work is focused on i18n these days, and I was never into themeing so it won't be me who fixes those. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 2, 2004 - 22:07 : kbahey I have tested the previous patch (including my fix) with drupal installed in the DocumentRoot of the server. So, in effect, it is tested with both Drupal in / and Drupal in a subdirectory. This change fixes the problem for the crawlers and other browsers from getting confused. While it is true that there is no fix for the .css files in the HTML head section yet, this fix deals with a major part of the problem, and rids us of a major pain. Check your web server's logs some time to see what I mean. Someone who is familiar with the themes can contribute a patch later. This patch and the future fix for themes are not mutually exclusive, so let it go in CVS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 9, 2004 - 15:31 : Goba Please commit this into Drupal core, this fix is badly needed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 13:00 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/base_url_kill.patch (4.34 KB) Well as noone have stepped in to fix this problem, I have tried to fix the themes also. themes.inc , xtemplate.engine and the bluemarine template is patched besides common.inc. Of course, more templates could follow, but first I'd like to see your opinions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 13:09 : Goba I don't think that removing <base> from the themes is a good idea, using $parts['path'] should be encouraged though before the files, which would fix the google cache problem, and would still keep the HTML size low. It would also help those, who save the file to find the originating site easier, since clicking on a non-pagelocal link would lead to the online version. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 16:03 : Steven Definitely -1 on removing the <base&gt tag or using absolute or root-relative URLs. This tag has been around for ages, and it is the only way to make clean URLs work without bloating in the code. FYI, "base" is (first?) mentioned in Berners-Lee's HTML 1.0 draft [1]. That's June 1993. As the amount of clean URL-using sites grows, the crawlers will have to be updated. Perhaps we could prevent crawlers from going too insane by 404ing for URLs with more than say 10 components? That would prevent the really crappy ones from hammering your site. I'm all for making the <base> tag easier to handle for the user (say, by including a filter to allow simple anchor links to work as most people expect them to), but we should keep Drupal-generated URLs clean and completely relative. [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 16:57 : kbahey The problem with css is this: The @import argument does not start with a /. This is simple to fix. We keep the "base" as it is today, but add the new variable: $base before it. So for a site where Drupal is installed in the DocumentRoot, all that will change is that /misc/drupal.css and /themes/themename/style.css will be preceded by a slash. For sites that use another path, that path will be prepended to the css file name. How about that? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 17:38 : Steven What exactly is the problem with the @import? As far as I know: - url() in stylesheets is interpreted relative to the base of the stylesheet, not the source document. - However, if the styles are inside an HTML document, through a style tag or style attribute, then the stylesheet's location is the same as the HTML document. - Thus, the stylesheet's base is the same as the base of the HTML document (which can be altered through the <base> tag). I just don't see why it is necessary. As far as I know, the only browser that has had problems resolving CSS urls properly was Netscape 4, which does not support @import at all, and which Drupal does not support either, because of its CSS usage. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 18:35 : kbahey The problem for stylesheets is as follows. I think it mainly affect crawlers and Google's cache. Say you have an installtion of Drupal in DocumentRoot. You then use url aliases, and put slashes in them. For example, you use news/general/2004-12-15.html for a node. That node still has misc/drupal.css and themes/pushbutton/style.css in the head section if the document. Crawlers get fooled by that and try to look for /news/general/misc/drupal.css and /news/general/themes/pushbutton/style.css, which don't exist. So, just prepending the new $base variable (in chx's patch) before the stylesheet @import argument would fix this issue. Assuming you are in DocumentRoot, then /misc and /themes would be used instead of just misc and themes. It would still be compliant with standards, be relative to the web site, and no ambiguous to anyone, be they crawler or browser. I hope it is clearer now. I think chx can change the patch to use the $base instead of $base_url everywhere, so as to avoid the host/domain name in the urls. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 21:36 : Steven But typical crawlers don't even pay attention to stylesheets, hence it wouldn't have much use for them. I just don't see why we should adjust to rare cases of buggy software. Reading out a base URL from an HTML document is dead easy, and on top of that it doesn't add more complexity as without the base tag, the document's URL is already an implicit base which has to be parsed anyway. I did not like it when we altered the <link&gt tag to accomodate buggy RSS readers and I certainly don't like it now, as this is even rarer. In both cases, it is not Drupal which is at fault. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 21:48 : kbahey Steven While I agree with most of what you said, the 404s show up in the logs enough to be a bother. Perhaps the original design of Drupal did not forsee that people will use url aliases to mimic directory/file hierarchies. Whether this was intended or not, it is the way many use Drupal today. It does not matter where the bug is (Drupal or the external world), as long as we can stop it ourselves, by adjusting our end of it. The fix is simple enough and does not break standards (if implemented as described with a leading / before the css). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 21:54 : Steven It does not break standards, but it does bloat the code in an ugly way. Why not send an e-mail to the owners of the crawlers and tell them to implement a standard that is nearly 10 years old [2] (RFC 1808)? Note that Google Cache now seems to correctly interpret base URLs [3] and even adds a <base> tag of its own. By the way, this problem has nothing to do with people using URL aliases or not, as for a browser the regular nested paths that Drupal uses (e.g. "node/1" is no different from aliases mimicking files "foo/bar.html"). [2] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1808.html [3] http://www.google.be/search?q=cache%3Awww.drupal.org&sourceid=mozilla-searc… ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 17, 2005 - 22:34 : Goba Steven, part of the problem is that Google cache does add a base href even if there is a base href in the document. Eg adds a <BASE HREF="http://drupal.org/node/13733"> on the plone comparision page cached. Now that since HTML does not allow more than one base tag [4] to be present, it is up to the browsers, to use the first or the last base value, or any of the base values on the page for that matter as the used base. So even pages displayed from the google cache will be buggy if a full relative path to the domain root is not specified, due to this problem. [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/sgml/dtd.html#head.content ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 18, 2005 - 07:14 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/base_url_kill_0.patch (4.75 KB) This one does not use the whole base_url only the path part of it. HTML bloat is kept at minimal. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/13148 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/13148

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] File attachments are sometimes saved with an incorrect mimetype
by tangent 01 Feb '05

01 Feb '05

Project: Drupal Version: 4.5.2 Component: file system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: tangent Updated by: tangent Status: patch Has anyone tested this patch? I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I'm just not sure we want all those extension tests in there. tangent Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 23:29 : tangent Files attached to issues (like patch files) which have "inc" in the filename are incorrectly served with a text/html mime type and their contents are marked up with html. This is clearly inappropriate. See the issue below for some examples of this occurance. http://drupal.org/node/16021 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 23:51 : tangent A filename with "module" in the name is also served the same way. Perhaps we should also test for "mysql, pgsql, php, css, xtmpl, sh, pl, txt" and any other text file extensions. If this is not desirable, at least change the filter to look for these extensions *at the end* of the filename and allow .patch (or possibly .diff) files to be served as plain text. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 30, 2005 - 12:32 : Dries The project module saves the mime-type sent by the browser when uploading the patch, and reuses that when serving the patch for download. It looks like some people upload patches with the wrong mime-type set. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 13:01 : tangent Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/file_mimetype.patch (3.81 KB) This issue is a symptom caused by faulty mimetype handling in file.inc so I'm updating the issue to the correct component. The old title was "File attachments with '.inc' in filename are served as HTML". Apparently, the real issue is that file.inc currently stores the content-type presented by the user-agent when file is uploaded. This is not the best thing to do because a user-agent can present an incorrect content-type either inadvertantly or, when used by a malicious person, purposefully. There are a couple of methods to determine the actual mimetype of a file but they all have drawbacks. The Fileinfo (http://pecl.php.net/package/fileinfo) PHP extension is the recommended tool for the job but is not typically available on a typical host. The mime_content_type() function requires the "file" program to be available which is not always the case either. Then there is the fallback method of testing the filename extension against a list of internally known extensions. I've created a patch which attempts the first 2 options and then falls back to the third. There may be a better option which I have not thought of though so feel free to offer suggestions. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/16142 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/16142

1 0

[drupal-devel] filebrowser.module
by Dries Buytaert 01 Feb '05

01 Feb '05

drupal-cvs(a)drupal.org wrote: > User: goba Branch: HEAD Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:29:19 +0000 > > Added files: > /modules/filebrowser README.txt filebrowser.module > > Log message: > Add filebrowser module with some initial documentation in the README. > We use this module to present the subversion browser on drupal.hu, > with all the special information about translators of files, and > file states. I tried looking for the 'subversion browser on drupal.hu' but could not find anything. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/

4 5

[drupal-devel] [feature] List options in profile.module
by chx 01 Feb '05

01 Feb '05

Project: Drupal Version: 4.5.0 Component: profile.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Alison(a)deanspace.org Reported by: Alison(a)deanspace.org Updated by: chx Status: patch Features can be added only to CVS HEAD not to 4.5.0 and please submit a patch not the whole module http://drupal.org/patch chx Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 1, 2005 - 15:57 : Alison(a)deanspace.org Add the ability to list the options of a profile field if the field is given but a value isn't to the profile module. For example, right now /profile shows all public user information, /profile/profile_school shows a blank page and profile/profile_school/Miami University shows all public info on users for that school. The purpose of this feature would be to replace the blank page with a listing of the options. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 1, 2005 - 15:58 : Alison(a)deanspace.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/profile_1.module (22.61 KB) I have written the code that allows a list of all possible schools to show up. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/16554 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/16554

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] List options in profile.module
by Alison 01 Feb '05

01 Feb '05

Project: Drupal Version: 4.5.0 Component: profile.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Alison(a)deanspace.org Reported by: Alison(a)deanspace.org Updated by: Alison(a)deanspace.org -Status: active +Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/profile_1.module (22.61 KB) I have written the code that allows a list of all possible schools to show up. Alison(a)deanspace.org Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 1, 2005 - 14:57 : Alison(a)deanspace.org Add the ability to list the options of a profile field if the field is given but a value isn't to the profile module. For example, right now /profile shows all public user information, /profile/profile_school shows a blank page and profile/profile_school/Miami University shows all public info on users for that school. The purpose of this feature would be to replace the blank page with a listing of the options. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/16554 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/16554

1 0