June 2005 - Development - lists.drupal.org

[drupal-devel] [feature] Profile field visiblity should vary by role
by judah 14 Jun '05

14 Jun '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/14149 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: profile.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: ejort Reported by: sushi76 Updated by: judah Status: patch I would have to disagree with you ber on this one. I have posted some comments on the Hidden Profile update mentioned above. The permission system *should* be apart of core. These shouldn't be broken out into another advanced module. There *shouldn't* be a node_privacy_by_role. This is unheard of in other systems. I have worked on many other cms solutions and permissions is always a part of the design. Should we plaster them on every feature? No. But we should not so easily dismiss this issue. Node privacy by role and field privacy by role should be considered more closely as a core function rather than where it is now. IMHO. Having said that I do understand the need to break things or branch things too. So it is up to you designers to consider this. Assuming this patch gets approved I would suggest you make the role assignment options available on the profile edit page if it's not already. judah Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 9, 2004 - 12:38 : sushi76 Currently there are only these three Options Private field, content only available to privileged users. (Admin users) Public field, content shown on profile page but not used on member list pages. (Everyone, but not in the member list) Public field, content shown on profile page and on member list pages. (Everyone, everywhere) It should be possible to set the visibilty of profile fields by user roles. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 6, 2005 - 14:40 : tulula I agree! If visibility is set by roles OR if the option is left up to the user to display their info at their discretion vs Admin at level of setting up profile fields. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 5, 2005 - 23:03 : ejort I agree that it should be possible to set visibility per role. There is profile data on my site that I want my organisation's committee members to see, but nobody else, there's information that I want only authenticated users to see, but not anonymous users etc. More than that, I think we should be able to set field editability by role also. There is data on my site that only certain people should be able to edit. If we get to this point then this would be a superset of the functionality discussed in the PROFILE_HIDDEN updates [1] thread, but would be much more flexible. [1] http://drupal.org/node/21219 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 10, 2005 - 02:07 : ejort Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/profile.module.role_based_field_permissions.… (12.97 KB) Hi, Here's a patch which implements role based edit / access permissions for profile fields. It allows you to give permissions to each role (and for each field) to: * access a field (for all accounts) * access a field for your own account * edit a field for your account Users with permission 'administer users' can access / edit all fields, and users must have enough permission to edit/access a profile for these extra permissions to come into effect. I believe this allows for more flexibility than the existing profile.module method of PROFILE_PRIVATE and in HEAD PROFILE_HIDDEN. You can eg: * hide some fields from anonymous users, while allowing other roles to still view that info * have fields viewable by only the admin and user who owns the account (like PROFILE_PRIVATE * have fields viewable by some roles, but only editable by the admin * have fields hidden from all except the admin, and editable only by the admin * it will make you more attractive to the opposite sex etc. I'm developing this because I need it for one of my sites, hence, unfortunately this patch is against the 4.6 profile.module. If people think this is a valuable feature for HEAD I can roll a patch against that. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 10, 2005 - 03:13 : Bèr Kessels I am not too sure about this. A typical profile contains between five and 10 fields, but twenty fields is not unheard of. This patch will flood the permissions screen unnneccesary. I would opt for the hard way: An advanced profile module, or CRM module, or so. hat module could implemen,t all sorts of advanced levelled permissions. In order to maintain a high level of usability in core, we should try to minimize options and checkboxes. I know from flexinode, which adds similar dynamic permissions, that the interface for permissions is really not up to this big amount of permissions. I really think such things should not be in core. Buty that all said, it /is/ a handy feature :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 10, 2005 - 03:53 : ejort Yes, unfortunately it can add a large number of permissions to the permissions page. I did consider trying to place the permission selections on each fields edit page instead (similar to the visibility settings), but as a certain eminent author recently wrote* [2]: "please use *only* the permissions page to set permissions, and do not create new permissions-alike settings in any configuration pages " :-) I think that the PROFILE_PRIVATE and PROFILE_HIDDEN (and the PROFILE_PUBLIC_*) settings are currently doing just that, implementing an alternate permissions system which addresses a few use cases, but is ultimately not particularly flexible. Is there any chance that the permissions sections can benefit from some collapsible goodness to alleviate the flooding? I think it's a shame to reduce the systems flexibility because it may create 'too many' permissions settings, especially as it is generally a set once and forget proposition. Perhaps we should look at the underlying UI problem? *That would be Bér :-) [2] http://drupal.org/node/22565#comment-32248 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 10, 2005 - 07:27 : Bèr Kessels Ejort, I know i wrote that. However, this is a little bit different. am not saying you should make a new system for changing the apperance of profile fields. I am only saying that having per-profile-field permissions is: * way OTT for the big mayority of users * extremely cluttering for the permission page (which, essetially is a problem in that interface, not in your "feature") ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 14, 2005 - 09:22 : ejort I don't agree that this is extremely off topic for most users. A large number of people using drupal in any business setting will likely find the extra flexibility invaluable (and the use cases popping up in discussions for regarding PROFILE_HIDDEN show that the current approach doesn't cover enough of the possibilities). I've worked on multiple jobs where I had to create contact lists and employee profiles where basic information was accessible to the public (name, work email, profile text), certain details (direct phone numbers) were only visible to internal company employees, other data (mobile phone numbers) were visible only to team leaders, other data (next of kin contact details) were only visible to an admin, and the user wasn't allowed to edit certain items (such as the public profile text). I've had similar needs come up across several jobs, but then again I wrote the patch so of course I needed it! :-) I also believe that the permissions page problem isn't too large an issue. The permissions are created in response to the admin creating profile fields (3 per field, 'access', 'access own', 'edit'), so the page has no extra permissions by default. This also isn't an interface that is accessed on a daily basis, and there is a good visual separation of the sections so it is easy to skim past the longer profile section if that's not what you're interested in. Of course, this is all just my opinion, and I'm a biased observer :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 14, 2005 - 09:37 : Bèr Kessels I know its a handy feature, that will be used in some cases. But then it should nbe in an advanced-profile.module. Not in core.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Profile field visiblity should vary by role
by Bèr Kessels 14 Jun '05

14 Jun '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/14149 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: profile.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: ejort Reported by: sushi76 Updated by: Bèr Kessels Status: patch I know its a handy feature, that will be used in some cases. But then it should nbe in an advanced-profile.module. Not in core. Bèr Kessels Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 9, 2004 - 19:38 : sushi76 Currently there are only these three Options Private field, content only available to privileged users. (Admin users) Public field, content shown on profile page but not used on member list pages. (Everyone, but not in the member list) Public field, content shown on profile page and on member list pages. (Everyone, everywhere) It should be possible to set the visibilty of profile fields by user roles. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 6, 2005 - 21:40 : tulula I agree! If visibility is set by roles OR if the option is left up to the user to display their info at their discretion vs Admin at level of setting up profile fields. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 6, 2005 - 06:03 : ejort I agree that it should be possible to set visibility per role. There is profile data on my site that I want my organisation's committee members to see, but nobody else, there's information that I want only authenticated users to see, but not anonymous users etc. More than that, I think we should be able to set field editability by role also. There is data on my site that only certain people should be able to edit. If we get to this point then this would be a superset of the functionality discussed in the PROFILE_HIDDEN updates [1] thread, but would be much more flexible. [1] http://drupal.org/node/21219 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 10, 2005 - 09:07 : ejort Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/profile.module.role_based_field_permissions.… (12.97 KB) Hi, Here's a patch which implements role based edit / access permissions for profile fields. It allows you to give permissions to each role (and for each field) to: * access a field (for all accounts) * access a field for your own account * edit a field for your account Users with permission 'administer users' can access / edit all fields, and users must have enough permission to edit/access a profile for these extra permissions to come into effect. I believe this allows for more flexibility than the existing profile.module method of PROFILE_PRIVATE and in HEAD PROFILE_HIDDEN. You can eg: * hide some fields from anonymous users, while allowing other roles to still view that info * have fields viewable by only the admin and user who owns the account (like PROFILE_PRIVATE * have fields viewable by some roles, but only editable by the admin * have fields hidden from all except the admin, and editable only by the admin * it will make you more attractive to the opposite sex etc. I'm developing this because I need it for one of my sites, hence, unfortunately this patch is against the 4.6 profile.module. If people think this is a valuable feature for HEAD I can roll a patch against that. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 10, 2005 - 10:13 : Bèr Kessels I am not too sure about this. A typical profile contains between five and 10 fields, but twenty fields is not unheard of. This patch will flood the permissions screen unnneccesary. I would opt for the hard way: An advanced profile module, or CRM module, or so. hat module could implemen,t all sorts of advanced levelled permissions. In order to maintain a high level of usability in core, we should try to minimize options and checkboxes. I know from flexinode, which adds similar dynamic permissions, that the interface for permissions is really not up to this big amount of permissions. I really think such things should not be in core. Buty that all said, it /is/ a handy feature :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 10, 2005 - 10:53 : ejort Yes, unfortunately it can add a large number of permissions to the permissions page. I did consider trying to place the permission selections on each fields edit page instead (similar to the visibility settings), but as a certain eminent author recently wrote* [2]: "please use *only* the permissions page to set permissions, and do not create new permissions-alike settings in any configuration pages " :-) I think that the PROFILE_PRIVATE and PROFILE_HIDDEN (and the PROFILE_PUBLIC_*) settings are currently doing just that, implementing an alternate permissions system which addresses a few use cases, but is ultimately not particularly flexible. Is there any chance that the permissions sections can benefit from some collapsible goodness to alleviate the flooding? I think it's a shame to reduce the systems flexibility because it may create 'too many' permissions settings, especially as it is generally a set once and forget proposition. Perhaps we should look at the underlying UI problem? *That would be Bér :-) [2] http://drupal.org/node/22565#comment-32248 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 10, 2005 - 14:27 : Bèr Kessels Ejort, I know i wrote that. However, this is a little bit different. am not saying you should make a new system for changing the apperance of profile fields. I am only saying that having per-profile-field permissions is: * way OTT for the big mayority of users * extremely cluttering for the permission page (which, essetially is a problem in that interface, not in your "feature") ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 14, 2005 - 16:22 : ejort I don't agree that this is extremely off topic for most users. A large number of people using drupal in any business setting will likely find the extra flexibility invaluable (and the use cases popping up in discussions for regarding PROFILE_HIDDEN show that the current approach doesn't cover enough of the possibilities). I've worked on multiple jobs where I had to create contact lists and employee profiles where basic information was accessible to the public (name, work email, profile text), certain details (direct phone numbers) were only visible to internal company employees, other data (mobile phone numbers) were visible only to team leaders, other data (next of kin contact details) were only visible to an admin, and the user wasn't allowed to edit certain items (such as the public profile text). I've had similar needs come up across several jobs, but then again I wrote the patch so of course I needed it! :-) I also believe that the permissions page problem isn't too large an issue. The permissions are created in response to the admin creating profile fields (3 per field, 'access', 'access own', 'edit'), so the page has no extra permissions by default. This also isn't an interface that is accessed on a daily basis, and there is a good visual separation of the sections so it is easy to skim past the longer profile section if that's not what you're interested in. Of course, this is all just my opinion, and I'm a biased observer :-)

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Profile field visiblity should vary by role
by ejort 14 Jun '05

14 Jun '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/14149 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: profile.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: ejort Reported by: sushi76 Updated by: ejort Status: patch I don't agree that this is extremely off topic for most users. A large number of people using drupal in any business setting will likely find the extra flexibility invaluable (and the use cases popping up in discussions for regarding PROFILE_HIDDEN show that the current approach doesn't cover enough of the possibilities). I've worked on multiple jobs where I had to create contact lists and employee profiles where basic information was accessible to the public (name, work email, profile text), certain details (direct phone numbers) were only visible to internal company employees, other data (mobile phone numbers) were visible only to team leaders, other data (next of kin contact details) were only visible to an admin, and the user wasn't allowed to edit certain items (such as the public profile text). I've had similar needs come up across several jobs, but then again I wrote the patch so of course I needed it! :-) I also believe that the permissions page problem isn't too large an issue. The permissions are created in response to the admin creating profile fields (3 per field, 'access', 'access own', 'edit'), so the page has no extra permissions by default. This also isn't an interface that is accessed on a daily basis, and there is a good visual separation of the sections so it is easy to skim past the longer profile section if that's not what you're interested in. Of course, this is all just my opinion, and I'm a biased observer :-) ejort Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 10, 2004 - 05:38 : sushi76 Currently there are only these three Options Private field, content only available to privileged users. (Admin users) Public field, content shown on profile page but not used on member list pages. (Everyone, but not in the member list) Public field, content shown on profile page and on member list pages. (Everyone, everywhere) It should be possible to set the visibilty of profile fields by user roles. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 7, 2005 - 07:40 : tulula I agree! If visibility is set by roles OR if the option is left up to the user to display their info at their discretion vs Admin at level of setting up profile fields. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 6, 2005 - 16:03 : ejort I agree that it should be possible to set visibility per role. There is profile data on my site that I want my organisation's committee members to see, but nobody else, there's information that I want only authenticated users to see, but not anonymous users etc. More than that, I think we should be able to set field editability by role also. There is data on my site that only certain people should be able to edit. If we get to this point then this would be a superset of the functionality discussed in the PROFILE_HIDDEN updates [1] thread, but would be much more flexible. [1] http://drupal.org/node/21219 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 10, 2005 - 19:07 : ejort Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/profile.module.role_based_field_permissions.… (12.97 KB) Hi, Here's a patch which implements role based edit / access permissions for profile fields. It allows you to give permissions to each role (and for each field) to: * access a field (for all accounts) * access a field for your own account * edit a field for your account Users with permission 'administer users' can access / edit all fields, and users must have enough permission to edit/access a profile for these extra permissions to come into effect. I believe this allows for more flexibility than the existing profile.module method of PROFILE_PRIVATE and in HEAD PROFILE_HIDDEN. You can eg: * hide some fields from anonymous users, while allowing other roles to still view that info * have fields viewable by only the admin and user who owns the account (like PROFILE_PRIVATE * have fields viewable by some roles, but only editable by the admin * have fields hidden from all except the admin, and editable only by the admin * it will make you more attractive to the opposite sex etc. I'm developing this because I need it for one of my sites, hence, unfortunately this patch is against the 4.6 profile.module. If people think this is a valuable feature for HEAD I can roll a patch against that. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 10, 2005 - 20:13 : Bèr Kessels I am not too sure about this. A typical profile contains between five and 10 fields, but twenty fields is not unheard of. This patch will flood the permissions screen unnneccesary. I would opt for the hard way: An advanced profile module, or CRM module, or so. hat module could implemen,t all sorts of advanced levelled permissions. In order to maintain a high level of usability in core, we should try to minimize options and checkboxes. I know from flexinode, which adds similar dynamic permissions, that the interface for permissions is really not up to this big amount of permissions. I really think such things should not be in core. Buty that all said, it /is/ a handy feature :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 10, 2005 - 20:53 : ejort Yes, unfortunately it can add a large number of permissions to the permissions page. I did consider trying to place the permission selections on each fields edit page instead (similar to the visibility settings), but as a certain eminent author recently wrote* [2]: "please use *only* the permissions page to set permissions, and do not create new permissions-alike settings in any configuration pages " :-) I think that the PROFILE_PRIVATE and PROFILE_HIDDEN (and the PROFILE_PUBLIC_*) settings are currently doing just that, implementing an alternate permissions system which addresses a few use cases, but is ultimately not particularly flexible. Is there any chance that the permissions sections can benefit from some collapsible goodness to alleviate the flooding? I think it's a shame to reduce the systems flexibility because it may create 'too many' permissions settings, especially as it is generally a set once and forget proposition. Perhaps we should look at the underlying UI problem? *That would be Bér :-) [2] http://drupal.org/node/22565#comment-32248 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 11, 2005 - 00:27 : Bèr Kessels Ejort, I know i wrote that. However, this is a little bit different. am not saying you should make a new system for changing the apperance of profile fields. I am only saying that having per-profile-field permissions is: * way OTT for the big mayority of users * extremely cluttering for the permission page (which, essetially is a problem in that interface, not in your "feature")

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] request_uri() broken if in subdir
by Robin Monks 14 Jun '05

14 Jun '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/10917 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: base system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Robin Monks Reported by: killes(a)www.drop.org Updated by: Robin Monks Status: patch I took great care to ensure I didn't remove any support needed for other servers. I also tested this patch to work on Xitami on Win32. Robin Robin Monks Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 17, 2004 - 19:05 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/requi.patch (678 bytes) We asumme the $_SERVER[REQUEST_URI] would contain only the url from the point of Drupal's directory on. This is true only iff you run from the root of your site. If you are in a subdir, the function request_uri() will be unusable if we want to construct a valid url from $base_url and request_uri() (what we do in a number of places). The attached patch fixes this by using basename(). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 17, 2004 - 19:45 : killes(a)www.drop.org The patch doesn't suffice if your access only the base_url of your Drupal site in a subdir. Putting on hold. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 17, 2004 - 21:39 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/request.patch (761 bytes) ok, I think I got it. The distinction between apache and non-apache servers went away to keep it simple. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 18, 2004 - 00:19 : killes(a)www.drop.org Apparently the action in forms depends on the bug that I found, ie it needs request_uri to contain the full url (from documentroot on). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 18, 2004 - 00:53 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/request_0.patch (2.46 KB) This new patch fixes the problem with forms. request_uri() also does not start with a leading slash anymore. Ask Steven for why this is good. http://acko.net/dumpx/relative.html is apparently a clue I don't get. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 18, 2004 - 01:04 : Steven Explanation: People are going to stick relative_uri() into links. These links are resolved relative to the $base_url which is put into the <head> tag. However, if a link URI starts with a / then it is relative to the root of the site, even if the base tag uses a path with a subdirectory. Example: <html> <base href="http://www.test.com/subdir1/"> <body> test [1] test [2] </body> </html> The first link resolves to http://www.test.com/subdir2, the second resolves to http://www.test.com/subdir1/subdir2. Thus, it is more meaningful to not have a leading slash, as this will avoid possible bugs with subdirs (which often do not get caught because the tester uses a site without a subdir) and hints at the callee that this is a relative URI too. [1] http://drupal.org//subdir2 [2] http://drupal.org/subdir2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 13, 2005 - 18:38 : Chris Johnson Patch no longer applies completely to bootstrap.inc: Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: includes/bootstrap.inc |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/drupal/drupal/includes/bootstrap.inc,v |retrieving revision 1.28 |diff -u -F^f -r1.28 bootstrap.inc |--- includes/bootstrap.inc 16 Sep 2004 07:17:54 -0000 1.28 |+++ includes/bootstrap.inc 18 Sep 2004 00:52:12 -0000 -------------------------- Patching file bootstrap.inc using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 273 (offset 83 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 292 (offset 83 lines). Hunk #3 failed at 446. 1 out of 3 hunks failed--saving rejects to bootstrap.inc.rej Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: includes/common.inc |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/drupal/drupal/includes/common.inc,v |retrieving revision 1.390 |diff -u -F^f -r1.390 common.inc |--- includes/common.inc 16 Sep 2004 16:12:21 -0000 1.390 |+++ includes/common.inc 18 Sep 2004 00:52:12 -0000 -------------------------- Patching file common.inc using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 988 (offset -90 lines). done ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 14, 2005 - 11:21 : Robin Monks Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/request_uri.broken.if.in.subdir.patch (2.6 KB) Here is that patch re-rolled for latest CVS HEAD. Since killes hasn't been active in this bug lately, I hope he won't mind my reassigning this to myself. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 14, 2005 - 11:22 : Robin Monks I've also tested this to work on CVS HEAD. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 14, 2005 - 13:33 : moshe weitzman did you test this on non apache servers? the comment that you removed is crystal clear about a need for 2 different cases. it is OK to 'make it simpler' as long as you don't remove compatibility with other web servers. I am primarily concerned with IIS.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] request_uri() broken if in subdir
by moshe weitzman 14 Jun '05

14 Jun '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/10917 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: base system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Robin Monks Reported by: killes(a)www.drop.org Updated by: moshe weitzman Status: patch did you test this on non apache servers? the comment that you removed is crystal clear about a need for 2 different cases. it is OK to 'make it simpler' as long as you don't remove compatibility with other web servers. I am primarily concerned with IIS. moshe weitzman Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 17, 2004 - 14:05 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/requi.patch (678 bytes) We asumme the $_SERVER[REQUEST_URI] would contain only the url from the point of Drupal's directory on. This is true only iff you run from the root of your site. If you are in a subdir, the function request_uri() will be unusable if we want to construct a valid url from $base_url and request_uri() (what we do in a number of places). The attached patch fixes this by using basename(). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 17, 2004 - 14:45 : killes(a)www.drop.org The patch doesn't suffice if your access only the base_url of your Drupal site in a subdir. Putting on hold. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 17, 2004 - 16:39 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/request.patch (761 bytes) ok, I think I got it. The distinction between apache and non-apache servers went away to keep it simple. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 17, 2004 - 19:19 : killes(a)www.drop.org Apparently the action in forms depends on the bug that I found, ie it needs request_uri to contain the full url (from documentroot on). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 17, 2004 - 19:53 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/request_0.patch (2.46 KB) This new patch fixes the problem with forms. request_uri() also does not start with a leading slash anymore. Ask Steven for why this is good. http://acko.net/dumpx/relative.html is apparently a clue I don't get. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 17, 2004 - 20:04 : Steven Explanation: People are going to stick relative_uri() into links. These links are resolved relative to the $base_url which is put into the <head> tag. However, if a link URI starts with a / then it is relative to the root of the site, even if the base tag uses a path with a subdirectory. Example: <html> <base href="http://www.test.com/subdir1/"> <body> test [1] test [2] </body> </html> The first link resolves to http://www.test.com/subdir2, the second resolves to http://www.test.com/subdir1/subdir2. Thus, it is more meaningful to not have a leading slash, as this will avoid possible bugs with subdirs (which often do not get caught because the tester uses a site without a subdir) and hints at the callee that this is a relative URI too. [1] http://drupal.org//subdir2 [2] http://drupal.org/subdir2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 13, 2005 - 13:38 : Chris Johnson Patch no longer applies completely to bootstrap.inc: Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: includes/bootstrap.inc |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/drupal/drupal/includes/bootstrap.inc,v |retrieving revision 1.28 |diff -u -F^f -r1.28 bootstrap.inc |--- includes/bootstrap.inc 16 Sep 2004 07:17:54 -0000 1.28 |+++ includes/bootstrap.inc 18 Sep 2004 00:52:12 -0000 -------------------------- Patching file bootstrap.inc using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 273 (offset 83 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 292 (offset 83 lines). Hunk #3 failed at 446. 1 out of 3 hunks failed--saving rejects to bootstrap.inc.rej Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: includes/common.inc |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/drupal/drupal/includes/common.inc,v |retrieving revision 1.390 |diff -u -F^f -r1.390 common.inc |--- includes/common.inc 16 Sep 2004 16:12:21 -0000 1.390 |+++ includes/common.inc 18 Sep 2004 00:52:12 -0000 -------------------------- Patching file common.inc using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 988 (offset -90 lines). done ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 14, 2005 - 06:21 : Robin Monks Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/request_uri.broken.if.in.subdir.patch (2.6 KB) Here is that patch re-rolled for latest CVS HEAD. Since killes hasn't been active in this bug lately, I hope he won't mind my reassigning this to myself. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 14, 2005 - 06:22 : Robin Monks I've also tested this to work on CVS HEAD. Robin

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] request_uri() broken if in subdir
by Robin Monks 14 Jun '05

14 Jun '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/10917 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: base system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Robin Monks Reported by: killes(a)www.drop.org Updated by: Robin Monks Status: patch I've also tested this to work on CVS HEAD. Robin Robin Monks Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 17, 2004 - 19:05 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/requi.patch (678 bytes) We asumme the $_SERVER[REQUEST_URI] would contain only the url from the point of Drupal's directory on. This is true only iff you run from the root of your site. If you are in a subdir, the function request_uri() will be unusable if we want to construct a valid url from $base_url and request_uri() (what we do in a number of places). The attached patch fixes this by using basename(). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 17, 2004 - 19:45 : killes(a)www.drop.org The patch doesn't suffice if your access only the base_url of your Drupal site in a subdir. Putting on hold. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 17, 2004 - 21:39 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/request.patch (761 bytes) ok, I think I got it. The distinction between apache and non-apache servers went away to keep it simple. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 18, 2004 - 00:19 : killes(a)www.drop.org Apparently the action in forms depends on the bug that I found, ie it needs request_uri to contain the full url (from documentroot on). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 18, 2004 - 00:53 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/request_0.patch (2.46 KB) This new patch fixes the problem with forms. request_uri() also does not start with a leading slash anymore. Ask Steven for why this is good. http://acko.net/dumpx/relative.html is apparently a clue I don't get. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 18, 2004 - 01:04 : Steven Explanation: People are going to stick relative_uri() into links. These links are resolved relative to the $base_url which is put into the <head> tag. However, if a link URI starts with a / then it is relative to the root of the site, even if the base tag uses a path with a subdirectory. Example: <html> <base href="http://www.test.com/subdir1/"> <body> test [1] test [2] </body> </html> The first link resolves to http://www.test.com/subdir2, the second resolves to http://www.test.com/subdir1/subdir2. Thus, it is more meaningful to not have a leading slash, as this will avoid possible bugs with subdirs (which often do not get caught because the tester uses a site without a subdir) and hints at the callee that this is a relative URI too. [1] http://drupal.org//subdir2 [2] http://drupal.org/subdir2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 13, 2005 - 18:38 : Chris Johnson Patch no longer applies completely to bootstrap.inc: Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: includes/bootstrap.inc |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/drupal/drupal/includes/bootstrap.inc,v |retrieving revision 1.28 |diff -u -F^f -r1.28 bootstrap.inc |--- includes/bootstrap.inc 16 Sep 2004 07:17:54 -0000 1.28 |+++ includes/bootstrap.inc 18 Sep 2004 00:52:12 -0000 -------------------------- Patching file bootstrap.inc using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 273 (offset 83 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 292 (offset 83 lines). Hunk #3 failed at 446. 1 out of 3 hunks failed--saving rejects to bootstrap.inc.rej Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: includes/common.inc |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/drupal/drupal/includes/common.inc,v |retrieving revision 1.390 |diff -u -F^f -r1.390 common.inc |--- includes/common.inc 16 Sep 2004 16:12:21 -0000 1.390 |+++ includes/common.inc 18 Sep 2004 00:52:12 -0000 -------------------------- Patching file common.inc using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 988 (offset -90 lines). done ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 14, 2005 - 11:21 : Robin Monks Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/request_uri.broken.if.in.subdir.patch (2.6 KB) Here is that patch re-rolled for latest CVS HEAD. Since killes hasn't been active in this bug lately, I hope he won't mind my reassigning this to myself. Robin

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] request_uri() broken if in subdir
by Robin Monks 14 Jun '05

14 Jun '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/10917 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: base system Category: bug reports Priority: normal -Assigned to: killes(a)www.drop.org +Assigned to: Robin Monks Reported by: killes(a)www.drop.org Updated by: Robin Monks -Status: active +Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/request_uri.broken.if.in.subdir.patch (2.6 KB) Here is that patch re-rolled for latest CVS HEAD. Since killes hasn't been active in this bug lately, I hope he won't mind my reassigning this to myself. Robin Robin Monks Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 17, 2004 - 19:05 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/requi.patch (678 bytes) We asumme the $_SERVER[REQUEST_URI] would contain only the url from the point of Drupal's directory on. This is true only iff you run from the root of your site. If you are in a subdir, the function request_uri() will be unusable if we want to construct a valid url from $base_url and request_uri() (what we do in a number of places). The attached patch fixes this by using basename(). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 17, 2004 - 19:45 : killes(a)www.drop.org The patch doesn't suffice if your access only the base_url of your Drupal site in a subdir. Putting on hold. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 17, 2004 - 21:39 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/request.patch (761 bytes) ok, I think I got it. The distinction between apache and non-apache servers went away to keep it simple. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 18, 2004 - 00:19 : killes(a)www.drop.org Apparently the action in forms depends on the bug that I found, ie it needs request_uri to contain the full url (from documentroot on). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 18, 2004 - 00:53 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/request_0.patch (2.46 KB) This new patch fixes the problem with forms. request_uri() also does not start with a leading slash anymore. Ask Steven for why this is good. http://acko.net/dumpx/relative.html is apparently a clue I don't get. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 18, 2004 - 01:04 : Steven Explanation: People are going to stick relative_uri() into links. These links are resolved relative to the $base_url which is put into the <head> tag. However, if a link URI starts with a / then it is relative to the root of the site, even if the base tag uses a path with a subdirectory. Example: <html> <base href="http://www.test.com/subdir1/"> <body> test [1] test [2] </body> </html> The first link resolves to http://www.test.com/subdir2, the second resolves to http://www.test.com/subdir1/subdir2. Thus, it is more meaningful to not have a leading slash, as this will avoid possible bugs with subdirs (which often do not get caught because the tester uses a site without a subdir) and hints at the callee that this is a relative URI too. [1] http://drupal.org//subdir2 [2] http://drupal.org/subdir2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 13, 2005 - 18:38 : Chris Johnson Patch no longer applies completely to bootstrap.inc: Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: includes/bootstrap.inc |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/drupal/drupal/includes/bootstrap.inc,v |retrieving revision 1.28 |diff -u -F^f -r1.28 bootstrap.inc |--- includes/bootstrap.inc 16 Sep 2004 07:17:54 -0000 1.28 |+++ includes/bootstrap.inc 18 Sep 2004 00:52:12 -0000 -------------------------- Patching file bootstrap.inc using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 273 (offset 83 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 292 (offset 83 lines). Hunk #3 failed at 446. 1 out of 3 hunks failed--saving rejects to bootstrap.inc.rej Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: includes/common.inc |=================================================================== |RCS file: /cvs/drupal/drupal/includes/common.inc,v |retrieving revision 1.390 |diff -u -F^f -r1.390 common.inc |--- includes/common.inc 16 Sep 2004 16:12:21 -0000 1.390 |+++ includes/common.inc 18 Sep 2004 00:52:12 -0000 -------------------------- Patching file common.inc using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 988 (offset -90 lines). done

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] path: help text mentions conf.php
by deekayen 14 Jun '05

14 Jun '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/24397 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: path.module Category: bug reports Priority: minor -Assigned to: Anonymous +Assigned to: deekayen Reported by: pz Updated by: deekayen -Status: active +Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/oldconf.patch (2.08 KB) attached patch changes conf.php reference to sites/default/settings.php deekayen Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 6, 2005 - 07:31 : pz Help text for path.module mentions conf.php which no longer exists, should probably be settings.php (or sites/default/settings.php) instead.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Last access time reports the epoch instead of 'never'
by deekayen 14 Jun '05

14 Jun '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/24766 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: user system Category: bug reports Priority: minor -Assigned to: Anonymous +Assigned to: deekayen Reported by: puregin Updated by: deekayen -Status: active +Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/epochuser.patch (1.17 KB) Attached patch shows "never" instead of epoch on new users with 0 as last visited value in the DB deekayen Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 10, 2005 - 12:32 : puregin As site admin, I create a user. When I look at the user admin page immediately afterwards, the user shows up with a 'last access' time of '35 years 24 weeks ago'. Could we report 'Never' instead of the epoch, if the last access time is older than the user account? I seem to recall a similar report, but I couldn't find it after searching through the issues for user.module, and issues in general. Djun ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 14, 2005 - 02:01 : deekayen Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/wrong_last_access.png (6.13 KB) I verified this on WinXP/PHP5.1. Screenshot attached.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] user uploads photo to profile -> getimagesize(): Read error! in /includes/image.inc on line 88
by kbahey 14 Jun '05

14 Jun '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/24157 Project: Drupal Version: 4.6.0 Component: other Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: chx Reported by: lennart Updated by: kbahey Status: patch I faced the same issue today. A 4.6 install, with image.module. At first I thought it was because of my changes to the image module, but then the follow up email to this one popped up in my inbox with the same exact error in the title! Spooky! kbahey Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 2, 2005 - 08:33 : lennart When a user tries to upload a photo to his or her profile the following error occurs in the log getimagesize(): Read error! in /includes/image.inc on line 88 I am using user.module and profile.module, but NOT image.module and upload.module GD2 is working. The problem is on a fresh 4.6.1 install without any contributed modules I did not know exactly what component to post this under, but I think it is important. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 2, 2005 - 11:57 : mariagwyn I am having the identical problem, except that I am using image.module. It happens anytime I click onto my images section. I get about 8 error messages, all the same. It this because images are missing? Any other reason? Thanks, Maria ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 2, 2005 - 16:47 : rolfijn Me to! I've installed the image-module also and get the same error. I've allready given a 777 permision on my drupal directory, as to make sure it's not a permissions error. When i log into drupal and go to administration -> settings i have the following setting: File system path:files (which resolves to /home/httpd/html/drupal/files, right?) and Temporary directory: tmp (which resolves to /home/httpd/html/drupal/files/tmp, right?). Then going to administration -> settings -> image i see my Default image path: images (which resolves to /home/httpd/html/drupal/files/images, right?) I run trustix secure linux 2.2 with the following (relevant) components installed: apache-2.0.54-3tr apache-html-2.0.54-3tr php-cli-5.0.4-3tr php4-4.3.11-2tr php-pgsql-5.0.4-3tr php-gd-5.0.4-3tr php-imap-5.0.4-3tr php-5.0.4-3tr php4-pgsql-4.3.11-2tr php4-gd-4.3.11-2tr php4-imap-4.3.11-2tr postgresql-8.0.3-1tr postgresql-libs-8.0.3-1tr postgresql-server-8.0.3-1tr gd-2.0.33-3tr gd-utils-2.0.33-3tr I have no idea what the problem can be. Somebody? Thanks in advance, Rolf Deenen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 5, 2005 - 15:22 : Dublin Drupaller same problem....drupal 4.6.1. import images...giving a warning: getimagesize(): Read error! Anyone found a solution? Dub ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 5, 2005 - 15:51 : Dublin Drupaller hi guys... I downloaded the latest image.module from the cvs repository...and it works.. http://cvs.drupal.org/viewcvs/drupal/contributions/modules/image_import/ The only down side is that it is in debug mode (which means a load of extra messages appear)...not sure how to switch that off...but, suffice to say that it looks like the owner/maintainer/developer of the the image_import module is on top of it. best to wait until the module developer updates the module. Dub ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 5, 2005 - 16:07 : celticess I'm getting the same error but I think it only happens to the one user using the grey box theme. Otherwise I can't find any rhyme or reason to it. Everything seems to be displaying correctly. I have the various image modules installed though not the cvs(I am using drupal 4.6.1). And no pictures have been uploaded to the galleries for it even to give the error. Also I'm getting another include error and one module specific which I have also filed bug reports on. The other include error though is common.inc line 1308 and it seems no real reason for it to be pumping out that code either.(the module error occurs only when I tell it to show browsers in the stats filtering) I'm not exactly a php wiz... haven't programmed since the 80's actually so I have no idea why it's burping out these 3 errors I'm getting. My Drupal 4.6.1 is being run off of a debian site with php4 and mysql. I myself use gentoo linux(thinking about going to BSD) however my isp TOS forbids servers or I'd run it off my own box. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 6, 2005 - 21:43 : chueewowee I get the same error message with drupal 4.6.0 even with all content unpublished and all images deleted from the content. The error in all pages even when not creating content. I sue a custom theme, but have not altered anything relevant to images. In fact I am having terrible problems publishing images with the image.module and image_upload.module, in that the galleries do not show in the create pages etc.. as a number of people have reported. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 7, 2005 - 19:57 : occy Yeah, I'm getting the same thing. :/ One would think with so many people having the same issue someone would have responded with a fix. I guess maybe I'll try the CVS version. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 7, 2005 - 20:31 : celticess I put the cvs module in(I'm not running cvs drupal though just 4.6.1) in and so far that error now seems gone. However the other error I'm still getting and I've got that other annoying image related problem where you've told it to default to not promoting new uploaded images to front page but it still does it. Btw I wonder if the guys realize the directions for patch aren't too clear. I've used linux since '96 and am self taught. Oddly enough never had to use patch as things auto patch on gentoo. And I've now asked friends for plain english explaination of how to do that on my debian host. Why am I mentioning patch? Because if you guys are also having an issue with album someone has put out a patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 8, 2005 - 12:05 : lennart the problem is not specific to image.module ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 8, 2005 - 15:17 : chx mage.inc , line 83, it's not file_exists but is_file . I suspect we'd better change theme_image also. Someone should roll a patch. Or I'll do when I have time :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 12, 2005 - 14:21 : Robin Monks Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/image.exist.patch (1.38 KB) Here is the patch per chx's comments, I made it for him as he didn't have time. He can answer any questions about it. Tested to work on HEAD. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ June 13, 2005 - 22:48 : mariagwyn I am still having the same problem. I have tried to upload the new CVS files for image.inc, themes.inc, and common.inc, and added the patches listed above. However, I get even more errors with the other CVS files, so I reverted so I could do one thing at a time. If I just add the patch to image.inc and theme.inc, I simply get a blank screen. I am able to see my images, upload images, but if I click the /image link (the image gallery), it gives me a blank screen with the same error listed. I am running 4.6.1., using a custom theme. You may see the problem at: http://www.stnina.org/test/image I am not sure if I missed something. Suggestions? thanks, Maria

1 0