March 2005 - Development - lists.drupal.org

Re: [drupal-devel] CivicGroups preview
by Boris Mann 05 Mar '05

05 Mar '05

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 11:48:36 -0800, Dan Robinson <dan(a)civicactions.com> wrote: > Once you get an account you will be automatically > subscribed to a mailing list attached to the forum. Currently there is > only one forum called "Discussion" visible from the home page. You can > control the mail delivery by editing your profile and going to the "my > forum mail settings" tab. Can you please turn on the drupal module so that we can sign in with existing accounts? Of course, this brings up the issue that accounts created in that way *don't* have an email associated with them by default -- but this will definitely be a use case. -- Boris Mann http://www.bryght.com

2 1

[drupal-devel] [bug] Putting a .theme file into themes/ makes all themes not working
by chx 05 Mar '05

05 Mar '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/16914 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: theme system Category: bug reports Priority: critical Assigned to: chx Reported by: chx Updated by: chx Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix_5.patch (3.27 KB) chx Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 08:13 : chx Try putting a .theme file into themes/ without any subdir. Enable it (maybe just saving theme settings is enough), Nothing will work after this. To restore your site: remove the offending theme, issue an SQL: DELETE FROM {system} WHERE type='theme' and save theme settings again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 08:14 : chx effects HEAD, too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 13:33 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themesfix.patch (542 bytes) Here is a patch which fixes the problem. However, I do not have the feeling that this is "the" solution. Feel free to come up with something better. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 13:35 : chx Oops forgot to set to CVS, 'cos the fix is against HEAD. Not that 4.5.2 does not need a patch... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 22:15 : Anonymous While this patch would allow a theme to be placed directly in the "themes" directory, it disables the ability for that theme to use a "style.css" file, which is inconsistent. I would prefer a patch that enforces the criteria that themes MUST be placed in a SUBDIRECTORY of "themes" -- themes placed directly in the "themes" folder should be ignored... maybe we could send the admin a drupal_set_message that would tell them about the problem when visiting admin/themes too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 23, 2005 - 00:07 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix.patch (693 bytes) Anonymous is right. I have made a better patch. Please commit, this is very important IMHO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 23, 2005 - 00:30 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix_1.patch (712 bytes) Message was wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 2, 2005 - 00:26 : chx May I know why this is not getting commited? This is a very nasty issue, the poor site admin who tries a few themes and misplaces one is totally baffled why his themes do not work after this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 2, 2005 - 09:26 : Dries - That should probably be an error message, rather than a status (success) message. - The coding style needs work. - For consistency the theme name should be wrapped in em's. - I'd prefer not to scan ./themes for .theme files and to ignore any .theme files places directly in ./themes. Won't commit as is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 2, 2005 - 12:37 : chx - That should probably be an error message, rather than a status (success) message. Ah, I was never aware of the second parameter of drupal_set_message! One always learns. - The coding style needs work. Spaces, my doom :( - For consistency the theme name should be wrapped in em's. Understood. - I'd prefer not to scan ./themes for .theme files and to ignore any .theme files places directly in ./themes. Well. Only a system_listing call happens before my patch in system_theme_data. All system_listing does it sets up a maximum of two starting points for a recursive file_scan_directory ($directory and $config/$directory) and file_scan_directory has no options for such an exclusion and it does not seem appropriate to change file_scan_directory only for this. Surely I miss something in here, but I still think that this special thing shall be done in system_theme_data. If this is accepted, the minor (from a coding point of view they are minor) issues will be corrected in no time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 5, 2005 - 20:14 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix_2.patch (3.2 KB) This is a whole new approach. Some credits: to nsk, because he triggered the bug and bought me Shadow of The Giant for fixing his site, but I took that as a sponsoring to fix this bug. To Steven for the $depth-as-argument and to Dries 'cos of "sensible defaults". We do not throw warning this time 'cos system_theme_data is not even aware of the faulty themes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 5, 2005 - 20:26 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix_3.patch (3.31 KB) PHPdoc and style fix ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 5, 2005 - 20:48 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix_4.patch (3.29 KB)

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Put revisions in their own table
by Anonymous 05 Mar '05

05 Mar '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/7582 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: killes(a)www.drop.org Reported by: killes(a)www.drop.org Updated by: Anonymous Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_21.patch (59.42 KB) BTW, I marked this a bug because atm the revisions field can grow quite big. Neil has reported problems from some users who were not able to load some nodes due to to many large revisions. Also, som unrelated stuff crept into the patch. New version attached. Anonymous Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 16:25 : 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 - 17:06 : 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 - 17:57 : 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 - 18:37 : 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 - 19:49 : 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 - 19:54 : Nick Nassar Oh yeah... The patch is a diff against Drupal CVS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 00:00 : 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 - 01:11 : Anonymous Also I think that your upgrade path loses existing revisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 02:39 : 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 - 14:40 : 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 - 13:55 : 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 - 14:10 : 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 - 16:14 : 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 - 17:20 : 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 - 19:23 : 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 - 02:35 : 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 - 01:04 : 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 - 01:05 : 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 - 01:05 : 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 - 05:05 : 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 - 04:21 : 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 - 12:26 : 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 - 00:25 : 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 - 12:33 : Dries Gerhard: your patch does not apply. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 17:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org Yes, I know, that was the same version as I mailed to you earlier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 21:02 : 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 - 08:58 : 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 - 17:34 : Nick Nassar If you need any help getting those things fixed, just let me know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 17:50 : 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 - 22:26 : 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 - 08:32 : 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 - 20:15 : 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 - 21:43 : 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 19, 2005 - 23:33 : 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 - 00:05 : 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 - 01:10 : 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 - 20:11 : 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 - 22:55 : 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 - 22:57 : 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 - 19:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_8.patch (55.71 KB) Updated once more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 20:52 : Dries Anyone to help review/test this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 21:22 : 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 - 00:27 : 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 - 00:27 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_10.patch (49.67 KB) I am probably slowly going mad ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 01:54 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_11.patch (48.95 KB) The update issue still needs investigating. This patch is updated for cvs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 20:20 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_12.patch (49.83 KB) Ok, here is a new version. I've solved my troubles with book.module. There are still some issues with forum module. Possibly due to inconsistent database. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 21:31 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_13.patch (49.83 KB) Turns out the drupal.org database had indeed some quirks. Please run this query in your oldest db and tell me the result: select nid,type from node where type like '%/%'; If you get a non-zero result we might need to add another security update. The patch could use still more testing, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 01:16 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_14.patch (49 KB) Ok, we are getting somewhere. At a first glance the update is working. There is a problem remaining: the revisions tab will be shown whether the node has revisions or not. Not sure we can/need to fix this. People with a drupal.org account can log in at http://killes.drupaldevs.org/revision/ and poke around. Your permissions will be the same as on drupal.org. Feel free to vreak everything but don't forget to file complaints here. (Note: this is only a pruned version of the drupal.org database with all project nodes and nodes with nids > 7000 dropped). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 04:19 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_15.patch (52.39 KB) There was some error in node_save and also the patches to the database.inc files got lost... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 07:07 : robertDouglass Submitting book pages doesn't work on your test site. It puts the entire content of the preview inside the body textarea. I wrote a sentence in the body and the log, and pressing preview put several lines of HTML containing both sentences in the body textarea on the preview page, plus the book page wouldn't submit. -R ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 07:50 : Junyor 0 results here. I started using Drupal with version 4.4, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 23:56 : killes(a)www.drop.org @Junyor: Thanks, that's a good sign. Maybe somebody else has an older db to try. @robertDouglass: The first effect you describe is due to drupaldevs running on PHP 5. I am unsure why the second thing does not work. In node_save() the node object has a nid although there is none in the form. Very strange. I've enabled display of db queries on the testsite. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 19:17 : dmjossel No results here on the query: select nid,type from node where type like '%/%'; On a database that was put in place prior to Drupal 4 and is now running on 4.5.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 20:44 : killes(a)www.drop.org @dmjossel: thanks. @all. The strange problem I reported was apparently php 5 related. After applying Steven's php 5 patch it went away. One error is remaining: If I create a new forum topic it will be shown as part of the book on preview. Hmm, that was due to a db that got corrupted during testing so that is fixed too. Please poke around at the test site and look if you find more errors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 5, 2005 - 07:16 : Steven By the way, I just remembered that Drupal.org has some blogs lingering on in the database even though blog.module is not enabled. Perhaps this is causing troubles? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 5, 2005 - 11:22 : Anonymous I can't see why it would. Drupal.org will need extra updates for images and project nodes because those have their own tables. GK. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 6, 2005 - 12:49 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_16.patch (52.49 KB) Updated to apply to cvs again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 22, 2005 - 20:15 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_17.patch (49.64 KB) Updated again. All we need is a patch to upload module and an upgrade path for it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 4, 2005 - 04:22 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_18.patch (52.31 KB) Updated once more. Moved log field from book to node_revisions table as discussed in Antwerp. upload module still missing. We need to decide under which circumstances the log field should be displayed. Should that be added to the workflow? Should it depend on the revisions setting? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 5, 2005 - 19:27 : Anonymous Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_20.patch (75.52 KB) Ok, here it is: Yet another revision of this grrrrreat patch. Changes from previous versions: - supports versioning for uploaded files. A problem is that if you delete a file, it will be gone for all revisions. - the log field is now in the node_revsions table, but each module has to decide whether to show it or not. I've implemented it for the page and the book type odes. Also, the field can be edited when adding non-book nodes to the book. The log is displayed on the revisions page and if a node is moderated. - the revisions are moved to an old_revisions table to a) get the node table smaller and b) still leave the mavailable for contrib modules that want to retreive old version data. The patch has been applied to killes.drupaldevs.org/revision where it can be tested by anybody (especially people who have "site admin" rights on drupal.org) The database is from drupal.org and you should b able to log in with your pass or simply mail yourself a new one. Gerhard

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Putting a .theme file into themes/ makes all themes not working
by chx 05 Mar '05

05 Mar '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/16914 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: theme system Category: bug reports Priority: critical Assigned to: chx Reported by: chx Updated by: chx Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix_4.patch (3.29 KB) chx Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 08:13 : chx Try putting a .theme file into themes/ without any subdir. Enable it (maybe just saving theme settings is enough), Nothing will work after this. To restore your site: remove the offending theme, issue an SQL: DELETE FROM {system} WHERE type='theme' and save theme settings again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 08:14 : chx effects HEAD, too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 13:33 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themesfix.patch (542 bytes) Here is a patch which fixes the problem. However, I do not have the feeling that this is "the" solution. Feel free to come up with something better. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 13:35 : chx Oops forgot to set to CVS, 'cos the fix is against HEAD. Not that 4.5.2 does not need a patch... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 22:15 : Anonymous While this patch would allow a theme to be placed directly in the "themes" directory, it disables the ability for that theme to use a "style.css" file, which is inconsistent. I would prefer a patch that enforces the criteria that themes MUST be placed in a SUBDIRECTORY of "themes" -- themes placed directly in the "themes" folder should be ignored... maybe we could send the admin a drupal_set_message that would tell them about the problem when visiting admin/themes too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 23, 2005 - 00:07 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix.patch (693 bytes) Anonymous is right. I have made a better patch. Please commit, this is very important IMHO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 23, 2005 - 00:30 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix_1.patch (712 bytes) Message was wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 2, 2005 - 00:26 : chx May I know why this is not getting commited? This is a very nasty issue, the poor site admin who tries a few themes and misplaces one is totally baffled why his themes do not work after this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 2, 2005 - 09:26 : Dries - That should probably be an error message, rather than a status (success) message. - The coding style needs work. - For consistency the theme name should be wrapped in em's. - I'd prefer not to scan ./themes for .theme files and to ignore any .theme files places directly in ./themes. Won't commit as is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 2, 2005 - 12:37 : chx - That should probably be an error message, rather than a status (success) message. Ah, I was never aware of the second parameter of drupal_set_message! One always learns. - The coding style needs work. Spaces, my doom :( - For consistency the theme name should be wrapped in em's. Understood. - I'd prefer not to scan ./themes for .theme files and to ignore any .theme files places directly in ./themes. Well. Only a system_listing call happens before my patch in system_theme_data. All system_listing does it sets up a maximum of two starting points for a recursive file_scan_directory ($directory and $config/$directory) and file_scan_directory has no options for such an exclusion and it does not seem appropriate to change file_scan_directory only for this. Surely I miss something in here, but I still think that this special thing shall be done in system_theme_data. If this is accepted, the minor (from a coding point of view they are minor) issues will be corrected in no time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 5, 2005 - 20:14 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix_2.patch (3.2 KB) This is a whole new approach. Some credits: to nsk, because he triggered the bug and bought me Shadow of The Giant for fixing his site, but I took that as a sponsoring to fix this bug. To Steven for the $depth-as-argument and to Dries 'cos of "sensible defaults". We do not throw warning this time 'cos system_theme_data is not even aware of the faulty themes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 5, 2005 - 20:26 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix_3.patch (3.31 KB) PHPdoc and style fix

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Put revisions in their own table
by Anonymous 05 Mar '05

05 Mar '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/7582 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system -Category: tasks +Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: killes(a)www.drop.org Reported by: killes(a)www.drop.org Updated by: Anonymous Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_20.patch (75.52 KB) Ok, here it is: Yet another revision of this grrrrreat patch. Changes from previous versions: - supports versioning for uploaded files. A problem is that if you delete a file, it will be gone for all revisions. - the log field is now in the node_revsions table, but each module has to decide whether to show it or not. I've implemented it for the page and the book type odes. Also, the field can be edited when adding non-book nodes to the book. The log is displayed on the revisions page and if a node is moderated. - the revisions are moved to an old_revisions table to a) get the node table smaller and b) still leave the mavailable for contrib modules that want to retreive old version data. The patch has been applied to killes.drupaldevs.org/revision where it can be tested by anybody (especially people who have "site admin" rights on drupal.org) The database is from drupal.org and you should b able to log in with your pass or simply mail yourself a new one. Gerhard Anonymous Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 16:25 : 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 - 17:06 : 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 - 17:57 : 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 - 18:37 : 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 - 19:49 : 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 - 19:54 : Nick Nassar Oh yeah... The patch is a diff against Drupal CVS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 00:00 : 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 - 01:11 : Anonymous Also I think that your upgrade path loses existing revisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 02:39 : 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 - 14:40 : 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 - 13:55 : 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 - 14:10 : 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 - 16:14 : 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 - 17:20 : 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 - 19:23 : 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 - 02:35 : 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 - 01:04 : 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 - 01:05 : 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 - 01:05 : 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 - 05:05 : 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 - 04:21 : 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 - 12:26 : 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 - 00:25 : 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 - 12:33 : Dries Gerhard: your patch does not apply. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 17:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org Yes, I know, that was the same version as I mailed to you earlier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 21:02 : 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 - 08:58 : 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 - 17:34 : Nick Nassar If you need any help getting those things fixed, just let me know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 17:50 : 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 - 22:26 : 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 - 08:32 : 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 - 20:15 : 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 - 21:43 : 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 19, 2005 - 23:33 : 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 - 00:05 : 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 - 01:10 : 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 - 20:11 : 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 - 22:55 : 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 - 22:57 : 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 - 19:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_8.patch (55.71 KB) Updated once more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 20:52 : Dries Anyone to help review/test this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 21:22 : 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 - 00:27 : 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 - 00:27 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_10.patch (49.67 KB) I am probably slowly going mad ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 01:54 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_11.patch (48.95 KB) The update issue still needs investigating. This patch is updated for cvs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 20:20 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_12.patch (49.83 KB) Ok, here is a new version. I've solved my troubles with book.module. There are still some issues with forum module. Possibly due to inconsistent database. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 21:31 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_13.patch (49.83 KB) Turns out the drupal.org database had indeed some quirks. Please run this query in your oldest db and tell me the result: select nid,type from node where type like '%/%'; If you get a non-zero result we might need to add another security update. The patch could use still more testing, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 01:16 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_14.patch (49 KB) Ok, we are getting somewhere. At a first glance the update is working. There is a problem remaining: the revisions tab will be shown whether the node has revisions or not. Not sure we can/need to fix this. People with a drupal.org account can log in at http://killes.drupaldevs.org/revision/ and poke around. Your permissions will be the same as on drupal.org. Feel free to vreak everything but don't forget to file complaints here. (Note: this is only a pruned version of the drupal.org database with all project nodes and nodes with nids > 7000 dropped). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 04:19 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_15.patch (52.39 KB) There was some error in node_save and also the patches to the database.inc files got lost... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 07:07 : robertDouglass Submitting book pages doesn't work on your test site. It puts the entire content of the preview inside the body textarea. I wrote a sentence in the body and the log, and pressing preview put several lines of HTML containing both sentences in the body textarea on the preview page, plus the book page wouldn't submit. -R ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 07:50 : Junyor 0 results here. I started using Drupal with version 4.4, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 23:56 : killes(a)www.drop.org @Junyor: Thanks, that's a good sign. Maybe somebody else has an older db to try. @robertDouglass: The first effect you describe is due to drupaldevs running on PHP 5. I am unsure why the second thing does not work. In node_save() the node object has a nid although there is none in the form. Very strange. I've enabled display of db queries on the testsite. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 19:17 : dmjossel No results here on the query: select nid,type from node where type like '%/%'; On a database that was put in place prior to Drupal 4 and is now running on 4.5.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 20:44 : killes(a)www.drop.org @dmjossel: thanks. @all. The strange problem I reported was apparently php 5 related. After applying Steven's php 5 patch it went away. One error is remaining: If I create a new forum topic it will be shown as part of the book on preview. Hmm, that was due to a db that got corrupted during testing so that is fixed too. Please poke around at the test site and look if you find more errors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 5, 2005 - 07:16 : Steven By the way, I just remembered that Drupal.org has some blogs lingering on in the database even though blog.module is not enabled. Perhaps this is causing troubles? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 5, 2005 - 11:22 : Anonymous I can't see why it would. Drupal.org will need extra updates for images and project nodes because those have their own tables. GK. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 6, 2005 - 12:49 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_16.patch (52.49 KB) Updated to apply to cvs again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 22, 2005 - 20:15 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_17.patch (49.64 KB) Updated again. All we need is a patch to upload module and an upgrade path for it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 4, 2005 - 04:22 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_18.patch (52.31 KB) Updated once more. Moved log field from book to node_revisions table as discussed in Antwerp. upload module still missing. We need to decide under which circumstances the log field should be displayed. Should that be added to the workflow? Should it depend on the revisions setting?

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Putting a .theme file into themes/ makes all themes not working
by chx 05 Mar '05

05 Mar '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/16914 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: theme system Category: bug reports Priority: critical Assigned to: chx Reported by: chx Updated by: chx Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix_3.patch (3.31 KB) PHPdoc and style fix chx Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 08:13 : chx Try putting a .theme file into themes/ without any subdir. Enable it (maybe just saving theme settings is enough), Nothing will work after this. To restore your site: remove the offending theme, issue an SQL: DELETE FROM {system} WHERE type='theme' and save theme settings again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 08:14 : chx effects HEAD, too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 13:33 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themesfix.patch (542 bytes) Here is a patch which fixes the problem. However, I do not have the feeling that this is "the" solution. Feel free to come up with something better. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 13:35 : chx Oops forgot to set to CVS, 'cos the fix is against HEAD. Not that 4.5.2 does not need a patch... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 22:15 : Anonymous While this patch would allow a theme to be placed directly in the "themes" directory, it disables the ability for that theme to use a "style.css" file, which is inconsistent. I would prefer a patch that enforces the criteria that themes MUST be placed in a SUBDIRECTORY of "themes" -- themes placed directly in the "themes" folder should be ignored... maybe we could send the admin a drupal_set_message that would tell them about the problem when visiting admin/themes too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 23, 2005 - 00:07 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix.patch (693 bytes) Anonymous is right. I have made a better patch. Please commit, this is very important IMHO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 23, 2005 - 00:30 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix_1.patch (712 bytes) Message was wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 2, 2005 - 00:26 : chx May I know why this is not getting commited? This is a very nasty issue, the poor site admin who tries a few themes and misplaces one is totally baffled why his themes do not work after this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 2, 2005 - 09:26 : Dries - That should probably be an error message, rather than a status (success) message. - The coding style needs work. - For consistency the theme name should be wrapped in em's. - I'd prefer not to scan ./themes for .theme files and to ignore any .theme files places directly in ./themes. Won't commit as is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 2, 2005 - 12:37 : chx - That should probably be an error message, rather than a status (success) message. Ah, I was never aware of the second parameter of drupal_set_message! One always learns. - The coding style needs work. Spaces, my doom :( - For consistency the theme name should be wrapped in em's. Understood. - I'd prefer not to scan ./themes for .theme files and to ignore any .theme files places directly in ./themes. Well. Only a system_listing call happens before my patch in system_theme_data. All system_listing does it sets up a maximum of two starting points for a recursive file_scan_directory ($directory and $config/$directory) and file_scan_directory has no options for such an exclusion and it does not seem appropriate to change file_scan_directory only for this. Surely I miss something in here, but I still think that this special thing shall be done in system_theme_data. If this is accepted, the minor (from a coding point of view they are minor) issues will be corrected in no time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 5, 2005 - 20:14 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix_2.patch (3.2 KB) This is a whole new approach. Some credits: to nsk, because he triggered the bug and bought me Shadow of The Giant for fixing his site, but I took that as a sponsoring to fix this bug. To Steven for the $depth-as-argument and to Dries 'cos of "sensible defaults". We do not throw warning this time 'cos system_theme_data is not even aware of the faulty themes.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Putting a .theme file into themes/ makes all themes not working
by chx 05 Mar '05

05 Mar '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/16914 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: theme system Category: bug reports Priority: critical Assigned to: chx Reported by: chx Updated by: chx Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix_2.patch (3.2 KB) This is a whole new approach. Some credits: to nsk, because he triggered the bug and bought me Shadow of The Giant for fixing his site, but I took that as a sponsoring to fix this bug. To Steven for the $depth-as-argument and to Dries 'cos of "sensible defaults". We do not throw warning this time 'cos system_theme_data is not even aware of the faulty themes. chx Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 08:13 : chx Try putting a .theme file into themes/ without any subdir. Enable it (maybe just saving theme settings is enough), Nothing will work after this. To restore your site: remove the offending theme, issue an SQL: DELETE FROM {system} WHERE type='theme' and save theme settings again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 08:14 : chx effects HEAD, too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 13:33 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themesfix.patch (542 bytes) Here is a patch which fixes the problem. However, I do not have the feeling that this is "the" solution. Feel free to come up with something better. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 13:35 : chx Oops forgot to set to CVS, 'cos the fix is against HEAD. Not that 4.5.2 does not need a patch... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 7, 2005 - 22:15 : Anonymous While this patch would allow a theme to be placed directly in the "themes" directory, it disables the ability for that theme to use a "style.css" file, which is inconsistent. I would prefer a patch that enforces the criteria that themes MUST be placed in a SUBDIRECTORY of "themes" -- themes placed directly in the "themes" folder should be ignored... maybe we could send the admin a drupal_set_message that would tell them about the problem when visiting admin/themes too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 23, 2005 - 00:07 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix.patch (693 bytes) Anonymous is right. I have made a better patch. Please commit, this is very important IMHO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 23, 2005 - 00:30 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/themefix_1.patch (712 bytes) Message was wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 2, 2005 - 00:26 : chx May I know why this is not getting commited? This is a very nasty issue, the poor site admin who tries a few themes and misplaces one is totally baffled why his themes do not work after this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 2, 2005 - 09:26 : Dries - That should probably be an error message, rather than a status (success) message. - The coding style needs work. - For consistency the theme name should be wrapped in em's. - I'd prefer not to scan ./themes for .theme files and to ignore any .theme files places directly in ./themes. Won't commit as is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 2, 2005 - 12:37 : chx - That should probably be an error message, rather than a status (success) message. Ah, I was never aware of the second parameter of drupal_set_message! One always learns. - The coding style needs work. Spaces, my doom :( - For consistency the theme name should be wrapped in em's. Understood. - I'd prefer not to scan ./themes for .theme files and to ignore any .theme files places directly in ./themes. Well. Only a system_listing call happens before my patch in system_theme_data. All system_listing does it sets up a maximum of two starting points for a recursive file_scan_directory ($directory and $config/$directory) and file_scan_directory has no options for such an exclusion and it does not seem appropriate to change file_scan_directory only for this. Surely I miss something in here, but I still think that this special thing shall be done in system_theme_data. If this is accepted, the minor (from a coding point of view they are minor) issues will be corrected in no time.

1 0

[drupal-devel] Re: [drupal:dries] /misc drupal.css
by Steven Wittens 05 Mar '05

05 Mar '05

drupal-devel(a)drupal.org wrote: >User: dries Branch: HEAD Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:03:57 +0000 > >Modified files: > /misc drupal.css > >Log message: > - Patch #18380 by Neil: putting margins on paragraph tags seems like something that Drupal.css shouldn't be doing. > > Note: is anyone checking if these changes affect the core themes? Steven Wittens

2 2

[drupal-devel] external database queries?
by Sheldon Rampton 05 Mar '05

05 Mar '05

I'd like to write some code that will let my Drupal installation do some queries of my MediaWiki database, which is a separate MySQL database than my Drupal database. And, I'd like to be able to take advantage of some of the nice tools that Drupal provides for managing query results, such as the pager. Can anyone suggest how I might do this? --Sheldon Rampton

3 3

[drupal-devel] Fw: [drupal-spam] [ANNOUNCE] spam_surbl module
by Jeremy Andrews 05 Mar '05

05 Mar '05

Begin forwarded message: Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 11:49:40 -0500 From: Jeremy Andrews <jeremy(a)kerneltrap.org> To: drupal-spam(a)kerneltrap.org Subject: [drupal-spam] [ANNOUNCE] spam_surbl module Hello, I have committed a powerful new spam detection module that enhances the existing spam module. The new module, spam_surbl, utilizes the multi.surbl.org SURBL to detect spam content. From the SURBL home page [1]: "SURBL is an RBL designed to be used to block or tag spam based on URIs (usually their domain names) contained within the message body. It is not a conventional RBL in that it's not intended to block the source of spam messages. Instead, SURBL can be used to block spams based on their message content." Basically, if this module and the spam module are both enabled and properly configured, as new content is posted to your website it will be scanned for URIs. Those URIs will be searched for in six SURBLs, and if found the content will be automatically detected as spam. This allows the spam module to gain from all the hard work being done by other spam fighters. This functionality is much like the spam module's existing URL filter, however it has the big advantage that it works without you teaching it. For example, without training the spam module, the spam_surbl module will automatically detect any posted comments that include a link to the ever familiar "free-casino-games-000 .com". What more, should a SURBL ever mis-mark a domain as spam, you can quickly click "mark as not spam" on the content and the domain will now be locally white-listed in the spam module's URL filter database. Known caveats: - the spam_surbl module currently does not detect IP addresses (ie 127.0.0.1) - the spam_surbl module currently does not detect URI's without a preceeding http://, https://, ftp://, or mailto: The spam_surbl module lives within the spam module project [2]. It is currently only available for the Drupal 4.5 release. View it in CVS here [3]. Enjoy, -Jeremy [1] http://www.surbl.org/ [2] http://drupal.org/node/11104 [3] http://cvs.drupal.org/viewcvs/drupal/contributions/modules/spam/spam_surbl/ _______________________________________________ drupal-spam mailing list drupal-spam(a)kerneltrap.org http://kerneltrap.org/mailman/listinfo/drupal-spam

1 0