April 2005 - Development - lists.drupal.org

[drupal-devel] [feature] No obvious way to tell which release a site is running
by Chris Johnson 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/20448 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: other Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Chris Johnson Reported by: Chris Johnson Updated by: Chris Johnson Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/releasename_contrib46.patch (684.22 KB) This is the same as Issue #20444 [1], except that the patch is for the *release 4.6* branch of the conributions repository (there is no 4.6 in the Issues Version field yet). 20444 says: " Same as Issue #20439 except for the contributions repository, instead of the core repository. >From 20439: "There's no easy way for a site administrator to tell which version of Drupal software his site is running. This is particularly a problem when an administrator manages multiple sites at multiple hosts. The problem becomes even more exacerbated when the same admin only has limited time to update the software on sites, resulting in confusion as to just what version is running where. While there are a lot of technical solutions to this problem, some of which I'd like to implement, this patch is the simplest and least invasive. It simply adds the CVS release tag name to each file which can take such a tag. An admin can thus look in any file and see which release it is." This patch is for all repository files which contain the CVS $Id$ keyword. " Again, this is for the DRUPAL-4-6 branch of contrib. [1] http://drupal.org/node/20444 Chris Johnson

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] No obvious way to tell which release a site is running
by Chris Johnson 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/20445 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: other Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Chris Johnson Reported by: Chris Johnson Updated by: Chris Johnson Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/releasename_core46.patch (32.57 KB) Same as Issue #20439 [1] except this is for *release 4.6* (although the Issue tracker does not yet have a 4.6 in its version selection). 20439 says: "There's no easy way for a site administrator to tell which version of Drupal software his site is running. This is particularly a problem when an administrator manages multiple sites at multiple hosts. The problem becomes even more exacerbated when the same admin only has limited time to update the software on sites, resulting in confusion as to just what version is running where. While there are a lot of technical solutions to this problem, some of which I'd like to implement, this patch is the simplest and least invasive. It simply adds the CVS release tag name to each file which can take such a tag. An admin can thus look in any file and see which release it is." This patch is for the DRUPAL-4-6 branch core files. A similar one will be added to a separate issue for DRUPAL-4-6 branch contrib files. [1] http://drupal.org/node/20439 Chris Johnson

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] No obvious way to tell which release a site is running
by Chris Johnson 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/20444 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: other Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Chris Johnson Reported by: Chris Johnson Updated by: Chris Johnson Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/releasename_contrib.patch (676.07 KB) Same as Issue #20439 [1] except for the contributions repository, instead of the core repository. >From 20439: "There's no easy way for a site administrator to tell which version of Drupal software his site is running. This is particularly a problem when an administrator manages multiple sites at multiple hosts. The problem becomes even more exacerbated when the same admin only has limited time to update the software on sites, resulting in confusion as to just what version is running where. While there are a lot of technical solutions to this problem, some of which I'd like to implement, this patch is the simplest and least invasive. It simply adds the CVS release tag name to each file which can take such a tag. An admin can thus look in any file and see which release it is." This patch is for all repository files which contain the CVS $Id$ keyword. [1] http://drupal.org/node/20439 Chris Johnson

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Put revisions in their own table
by moshe weitzman 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '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: moshe weitzman Status: patch since HEAD is open again, perhaps it is a good time to revisit this patch. once this is committed, lets address - http://drupal.org/node/11071 "node_validate does not respect group editing" moshe weitzman Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 11:25 : 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 - 12:06 : 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 - 12:57 : 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 - 13:37 : 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 - 14:49 : 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 - 14:54 : Nick Nassar Oh yeah... The patch is a diff against Drupal CVS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 30, 2004 - 19:00 : 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 30, 2004 - 20:11 : Anonymous Also I think that your upgrade path loses existing revisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 30, 2004 - 21:39 : 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 - 09:40 : 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 - 08:55 : 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 - 09:10 : 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 - 11:14 : 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 - 12:20 : 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 - 14:23 : 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 25, 2004 - 21:35 : 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 26, 2004 - 20:04 : 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 26, 2004 - 20:05 : 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 26, 2004 - 20:05 : 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 - 00:05 : 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 23, 2004 - 23:21 : 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 - 07:26 : 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 12, 2004 - 19:25 : 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 - 07:33 : Dries Gerhard: your patch does not apply. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 12:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org Yes, I know, that was the same version as I mailed to you earlier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 16:02 : 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 - 03:58 : 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 - 12:34 : Nick Nassar If you need any help getting those things fixed, just let me know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 12:50 : 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 - 17:26 : 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 - 03:32 : 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 - 15:15 : 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 - 16:43 : 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 - 18:33 : 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 19, 2005 - 19:05 : 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 19, 2005 - 20:10 : 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 - 15:11 : 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 - 17:55 : 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 - 17:57 : 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 - 14:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_8.patch (55.71 KB) Updated once more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 15:52 : Dries Anyone to help review/test this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 16:22 : 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 1, 2005 - 19:27 : 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 1, 2005 - 19:27 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_10.patch (49.67 KB) I am probably slowly going mad ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 1, 2005 - 20:54 : 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 - 15:20 : 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 - 16:31 : 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 2, 2005 - 20:16 : 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 2, 2005 - 23:19 : 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 - 02:07 : 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 - 02:50 : Junyor 0 results here. I started using Drupal with version 4.4, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 18:56 : 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 - 14:17 : 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 - 15:44 : 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 - 02:16 : 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 - 06:22 : 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 - 07:49 : 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 - 15:15 : 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 3, 2005 - 23:22 : 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 - 14:27 : 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 5, 2005 - 14:51 : Anonymous 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 8, 2005 - 00:56 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_22.patch (60.29 KB) Ok, I think I got it. Changes to last version: - uploads are no properly versioned. Missing are still pgsql checks and updates. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 10, 2005 - 11:58 : Anonymous Was able to get http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_21.patch to work with drupal-cvs.tar.gz (10 March 2005) by: - includes/database.mysql.inc: Commenting out duplicates for functions function db_begin_transaction and function db_commit_transaction - modules: node.module: Removing "'title' => $node->title," from $node_table_values variable declaration and removing "'title' => "'%s'"," from "$node_table_types" variable declaration. Happy to submit a patch if requested. I'll watch this thread. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 11, 2005 - 18:59 : killes(a)www.drop.org The duplicate function has been removed in rev 22 of this patch. Why do you think the changes in node_save are needed? Titles are saved in both tables for performance reasons. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 13, 2005 - 11:12 : jlerner Hi - I posted comment #62. The changes to node_save appear to be needed because recent patches (both 21 and 22) remove the field 'title' from table 'node'. So without the changes to node_save, node.module is broken and generates errors. Joshua ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 13, 2005 - 11:29 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_23.patch (61.17 KB) Thanks, Joshua, for catching this. node:title is there to stay.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Moving user_module_invoke after retrieving roles from database
by kees 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/20058 Project: Drupal Version: 4.5.2 Component: user.module Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: kees Updated by: kees Status: patch Hi, To be able to update the $user object from a module, the _user('load') hook must be called AFTER loading the current roles from the database, and not before. It is simply a matter of moving one line a few lines down. Here is the unified patch: --- drupal-4.5.2-hyper/modules/user.module 2005-04-01 10:16:15.000000000 +0200 +++ drupal-4.5.2/modules/user.module 2005-01-05 21:17:33.000000000 +0100 @@ -69,6 +69,7 @@ if (db_num_rows($result)) { $user = db_fetch_object($result); $user = drupal_unpack($user); + user_module_invoke('load', $array, $user); $user->roles = array(); $result = db_query('SELECT r.rid, r.name FROM {role} r INNER JOIN {users_roles} ur ON ur.rid = r.rid WHERE ur.uid = %d', $user->uid); @@ -79,7 +80,6 @@ else { $user = new StdClass(); } - user_module_invoke('load', $array, $user); return $user; } @@ -1191,7 +1191,6 @@ $op = arg(2) ? arg(2) : arg(1); } - switch ($op) { case t('E-mail new password'): case 'password': kees

4 3

[drupal-devel] [bug] node.module is not optional, should not be optional in module list
by moshe weitzman 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/12794 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: module system Category: bug reports -Priority: normal +Priority: critical Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: robertDouglass Updated by: moshe weitzman Status: patch many users getting bitten by this in the forums. upgrading to critical moshe weitzman Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 10, 2004 - 16:56 : robertDouglass If I disable all modules I get this error when clicking on a subsequent link Fatal error: Call to undefined function: node_list() in \drupal\includes\theme.inc on line 227 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 1, 2005 - 02:56 : asimmonds Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/theme_inc_node_list.patch (693 bytes) Still happens if the node.module is disabled, attached patch should fix it.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Blocks with no title kill Drupal
by Robin Monks 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/19965 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: block.module Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Robin Monks Reported by: budda Updated by: Robin Monks Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/4_0.6 blank title (3.62 KB) That patch had a bug in it, new patch attached. Robin Robin Monks Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 4, 2005 - 17:03 : budda When setting more than one block's title to '' (blank) Drupal dies, and doesn't catch the SQL query error nicely. The error is as follows: user error: Duplicate entry '' for key 2 query: UPDATE boxes SET title = '', body = ' ...<cut>... in /var/www/html/drupal-cvs/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 66. Using 4.6 build from 4/4/2005 The page ends with: warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/html/drupal-cvs/includes/common.inc:384) in /var/www/html/drupal-cvs/includes/common.inc on line 192. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 08:08 : robertDouglass There should be a check before the insert is attempted and if the block title already exists the user should be notified with form_error(). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 09:46 : Poolio this certainly doesn't solve the problem, but I've worked around this issue by using html tags in the title field for blocks that I don't want to show a title. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 00:31 : Robin Monks Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/block.module.blank.title.patch (955 bytes) A small patch that checks to ensure the title does not already exit in the Blocks list. Also, if the field was left blank, in adds an HTML comment with the current date to the second to ensure that a duplicate title isn't created. This is my first patch, so I probably did something wrong, but I'm willing to fix it too. Robin Monks MozNetwork.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 01:22 : Morbus Iff I'm, personally, fine with how you've fixed the blank block title. You've really solved two problems in one: duplicate titles (which is the cause of this Issue), and the desire to have blank (or no) titles (which is the reason for this Issue) for the end user. With that said, I'm not a fan of your error message (but, then again, anal wording is my specialty, so don't think I'm picking on you): I'd rename it to "That block title is already in use; please choose another." The goals here: The user may not remember all the previous titles he's used. Using "unique" starts forcing him to remember. We shouldn't do that. The user already knows he entered it - we don't have to repeat that to him. It's active, not passive (no use of "have"). Use a semi-colon, not a comma. It's much shorter and concise. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 06:27 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/box_title.patch (1.49 KB) Why display any message at all? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 14:11 : Morbus Iff Displaying no message at all would only work if the user wasn't typing in ANY title whatsoever (since then we'd make one for them based on the date). But, if a user names a block "Users" one week, and then creates another block called "Users" three weeks later, than an whoopsidaisy error needs to be shown - we shouldn't modify the text randomly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 15:10 : chx Well, let's discuss the main point: why shoiuld be the title unique? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 15:38 : Morbus Iff Are you asking why Drupal enforces them being unique, or why, visually and to the end-user, they should be unique? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 15:43 : chx I guess Drupal forces them 'cos for some reasons it is thought that for the users they should be unique. This is not the case, however. Yes, it's confusing if they are on the same page. But I can think on circumstances where they would not be on the same page, so the force from Drupal seems unnecessary. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 19:00 : robertDouglass agree with chx on the unique point. Like the functionality of adding html comments and timestamp (why timestamp? why not a block id?) if left blank if they must be uniqe. Would be in favor of making the visible title completely optional. Administrators have description to keep them separate on the admin screen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 19:48 : Robin Monks Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/drupal_0.patch (3.67 KB) This new patch no longer requires a unique value for title, and also checks to ensure the Block Description is not a duplicate or empty value. Big thanks go out to chx for assistance. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 14:20 : Anonymous Shouldn't we add a test too to check info unicity ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 14:38 : chx <?php if (empty($edit['info']) || db_num_rows(db_query("SELECT info FROM {boxes} WHERE info='%s'", $edit['info']))) { ?> To me, this seems like a check for info unicity... not to mention that the UNIQUE(info) DB constraint is not touched. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 14:46 : tostinni Ups, sorry for the anonymous and the message, I didn't saw this verification, I was only remembering block.module code. That's all fine for me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 16:27 : njivy +1 to Robin Monks' patch. When I install Drupal, the first thing I always do is remove the /unique key/ constraint on block titles. I have not tested the other parts of Monks' patch, though, including the uniqueness constraint on block descriptions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 19:04 : drumm Code looks okay. +1 "You must enter unique data into the block description field." doesn't sound like the friendliest of error messages. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 19:16 : Dries I'm OK with this patch but suggest that we look into improving the error message. Small nit: fix the spacing around '=' in the SQL query that checks for duplicates. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 23:40 : Robin Monks Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/drupal_1.patch (3.97 KB) Here is a new patch with the changes and with the updates.inc file changed to reflect patchs applied after the original patch was made. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 12, 2005 - 18:52 : Dries Committed to HEAD. Thanks. The patch did not apply against DRUPAL-4-6. Possibly needs to get backported. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 13, 2005 - 15:36 : Robin Monks Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/4.6 blank title (3.63 KB) Here is the patch backported for 4.6. Robin MozNetwork.org

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Blocks with no title kill Drupal
by Robin Monks 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/19965 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: block.module Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Robin Monks Reported by: budda Updated by: Robin Monks -Status: fixed +Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/4.6 blank title (3.63 KB) Here is the patch backported for 4.6. Robin MozNetwork.org Robin Monks Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 4, 2005 - 17:03 : budda When setting more than one block's title to '' (blank) Drupal dies, and doesn't catch the SQL query error nicely. The error is as follows: user error: Duplicate entry '' for key 2 query: UPDATE boxes SET title = '', body = ' ...<cut>... in /var/www/html/drupal-cvs/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 66. Using 4.6 build from 4/4/2005 The page ends with: warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/html/drupal-cvs/includes/common.inc:384) in /var/www/html/drupal-cvs/includes/common.inc on line 192. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 08:08 : robertDouglass There should be a check before the insert is attempted and if the block title already exists the user should be notified with form_error(). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 09:46 : Poolio this certainly doesn't solve the problem, but I've worked around this issue by using html tags in the title field for blocks that I don't want to show a title. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 00:31 : Robin Monks Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/block.module.blank.title.patch (955 bytes) A small patch that checks to ensure the title does not already exit in the Blocks list. Also, if the field was left blank, in adds an HTML comment with the current date to the second to ensure that a duplicate title isn't created. This is my first patch, so I probably did something wrong, but I'm willing to fix it too. Robin Monks MozNetwork.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 01:22 : Morbus Iff I'm, personally, fine with how you've fixed the blank block title. You've really solved two problems in one: duplicate titles (which is the cause of this Issue), and the desire to have blank (or no) titles (which is the reason for this Issue) for the end user. With that said, I'm not a fan of your error message (but, then again, anal wording is my specialty, so don't think I'm picking on you): I'd rename it to "That block title is already in use; please choose another." The goals here: The user may not remember all the previous titles he's used. Using "unique" starts forcing him to remember. We shouldn't do that. The user already knows he entered it - we don't have to repeat that to him. It's active, not passive (no use of "have"). Use a semi-colon, not a comma. It's much shorter and concise. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 06:27 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/box_title.patch (1.49 KB) Why display any message at all? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 14:11 : Morbus Iff Displaying no message at all would only work if the user wasn't typing in ANY title whatsoever (since then we'd make one for them based on the date). But, if a user names a block "Users" one week, and then creates another block called "Users" three weeks later, than an whoopsidaisy error needs to be shown - we shouldn't modify the text randomly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 15:10 : chx Well, let's discuss the main point: why shoiuld be the title unique? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 15:38 : Morbus Iff Are you asking why Drupal enforces them being unique, or why, visually and to the end-user, they should be unique? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 15:43 : chx I guess Drupal forces them 'cos for some reasons it is thought that for the users they should be unique. This is not the case, however. Yes, it's confusing if they are on the same page. But I can think on circumstances where they would not be on the same page, so the force from Drupal seems unnecessary. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 19:00 : robertDouglass agree with chx on the unique point. Like the functionality of adding html comments and timestamp (why timestamp? why not a block id?) if left blank if they must be uniqe. Would be in favor of making the visible title completely optional. Administrators have description to keep them separate on the admin screen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 9, 2005 - 19:48 : Robin Monks Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/drupal_0.patch (3.67 KB) This new patch no longer requires a unique value for title, and also checks to ensure the Block Description is not a duplicate or empty value. Big thanks go out to chx for assistance. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 14:20 : Anonymous Shouldn't we add a test too to check info unicity ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 14:38 : chx <?php if (empty($edit['info']) || db_num_rows(db_query("SELECT info FROM {boxes} WHERE info='%s'", $edit['info']))) { ?> To me, this seems like a check for info unicity... not to mention that the UNIQUE(info) DB constraint is not touched. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 14:46 : tostinni Ups, sorry for the anonymous and the message, I didn't saw this verification, I was only remembering block.module code. That's all fine for me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 16:27 : njivy +1 to Robin Monks' patch. When I install Drupal, the first thing I always do is remove the /unique key/ constraint on block titles. I have not tested the other parts of Monks' patch, though, including the uniqueness constraint on block descriptions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 19:04 : drumm Code looks okay. +1 "You must enter unique data into the block description field." doesn't sound like the friendliest of error messages. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 19:16 : Dries I'm OK with this patch but suggest that we look into improving the error message. Small nit: fix the spacing around '=' in the SQL query that checks for duplicates. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 23:40 : Robin Monks Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/drupal_1.patch (3.97 KB) Here is a new patch with the changes and with the updates.inc file changed to reflect patchs applied after the original patch was made. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 12, 2005 - 18:52 : Dries Committed to HEAD. Thanks. The patch did not apply against DRUPAL-4-6. Possibly needs to get backported.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Trimmed post element not updated when node is edited via blogapi
by Anonymous 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/15071 Project: Drupal -Version: cvs +Version: 4.5.2 Component: blogapi.module Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: teradome Updated by: Anonymous -Status: active +Status: patch Hi, this is my solution (ugly hack?) for blogapi.module and function blogapi_edit_post(). Just insert this: unset($node->teaser); // update teaser for blog (see node_validate below) on line 184 or somewhere before line: $node = node_validate($node); Problem definition: A $node->teaser is not empty after call node_load() function and blogs does not support teasers, so when node_validate($node) function is called a teaser is not recreated. máca Anonymous Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 3, 2005 - 19:57 : teradome Editing an existing post via blogapi (in my case, set to MovableType) does not update the node's "trimmed post" string--it remains the same as when last committted from the Drupal installation itself.

1 0

[drupal-devel] Node access module
by Karoly Negyesi 13 Apr '05

13 Apr '05

Hi! Although there are two contrib modules (node_privacy_by_role and nodeperm_role) which leverages the node access system, I have written a third one which is in my (chx) sandbox as nodeaccess.module. I do not intend it to be a contrib module -- I'd like to see it in 4.7 core. Features are: 1) You may give grants per role for each node type 2) Every node may have a grant tab where ordinary users may give additional grants for other users. Admins may edit grants per roles. Whether this grant tabs appears can be controlled again per node type. 3) Users may save these additional grants as default for their content. I think the UI is straightforward. TODO a) provide a mechanism to delete the default in 3) b) provide hooks for group modules so that users may operate on those, too So, this module is much more community oriented than the previous attempts while the admin remains in the driver's seat. Installation now requires a manual emptying of the node access table. Will improve this one, too. Regards Karoly Negyesi

7 8