August 2005 - Development - lists.drupal.org

[drupal-devel] [bug] Allow both postgres and mysql database connections from within the same site.
by adrian 17 Aug '05

17 Aug '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/19522 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: database system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: adrian Reported by: adrian Updated by: adrian Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/multi-dbtype.diff (14.57 KB) When I originally coded the multiple database support I noted the caveat that only one database type was useable at a time due to the conflicting function names, so including both database.pgsql.inc and database.mysql.inc would cause a crash. This was also brought up again when someone reopened the multi-db functionality issue, and I am attaching the patch here. I would love for this patch to get into 4.6 if possible. I don't believe it's very invasive, and it fixes a long standing bug in the db api. I have been using some form of this patch on Bryght for the last 3-4 months, and have not found any ill effects related to it. I also clarified the db_set_active() comments a bit after I saw this issue (http://drupal.org/node/13115) adrian

3 4

[drupal-devel] [feature] Do not install a PHP code format by default
by chx 17 Aug '05

17 Aug '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/27330 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/27330 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: database system Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: chx Reported by: chx Updated by: chx Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/dbinit.patch (2.04 KB) Those users that are advanced enough that they need PHP pages, will be able to create a custom input format. chx

12 17

[drupal-devel] [bug] welcome text appears when the query in node_page_default is rewritten to have an empty result
by chx 17 Aug '05

17 Aug '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/18340 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node.module Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: chx Reported by: chx Updated by: chx Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/default_as_node.patch (8.55 KB) As discussed on IRC, I have moved the welcome text into node 0 as a PHP node. Although there is a check for whether this welcome node is present for every node_page_default call, it is only a variable_get, so it is cheap. Also at every node save we check for the same variable, and if the welcome node is present, it gets silently deleted. So, as soon as the first node gets created, the welcome text disappears as it should. The one liner in node_validate is very important when a node with nid=0 is present. Otherwise, consider it a minor speedup. This patch should have a little positive effect on the memory requirements of node.module -- a long, rarely used text is removed. This is not a new feature but a usability issue so let's get it into 4.6. Although there is change (two INSERTs) to database.mysql and database.pgsql it does not mandate an update.inc change 'cos most probably noone will bother with updating an empty site. I payed special attention to spaces this time. chx

6 15

[drupal-devel] [bug] Put revisions in their own table
by killes 16 Aug '05

16 Aug '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/7582 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/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: killes(a)www.drop.org Status: patch (code needs review) Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_34.patch (52.92 KB) Ok, here is incarnation No. 34 of this patch. Dries agrees with me that we can put the revision rescue operation into a later update, possible using Drumm's installer. The patch fixes the issue with the file uploads not being deletable, I could not reproduce the problem with the outlines. killes(a)www.drop.org Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 05 May 2004 16:25:27 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 05 May 2004 17:06:35 +0000 : 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? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 05 May 2004 17:57:48 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 05 May 2004 18:37:29 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:49:33 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:54:36 +0000 : Nick Nassar Oh yeah... The patch is a diff against Drupal CVS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:00:08 +0000 : 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? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:11:59 +0000 : Anonymous Also I think that your upgrade path loses existing revisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:39:12 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:40:15 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:55:49 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:10:39 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:14:39 +0000 : 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. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:20:57 +0000 : 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:23:29 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:35:06 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:04:09 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:05:16 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:05:26 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:05:30 +0000 : 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! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:21:18 +0000 : 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:26:02 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:25:40 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:33:08 +0000 : Dries Gerhard: your patch does not apply. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:10:12 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Yes, I know, that was the same version as I mailed to you earlier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:02:06 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions.patch (52.96 KB) Ok, upüdated the patch to cvs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:58:36 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:34:44 +0000 : Nick Nassar If you need any help getting those things fixed, just let me know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:50:30 +0000 : 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:26:19 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:32:50 +0000 : Dries Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions-bug.png (76.06 KB) It didn't fix the aforementioned bugs. See attached screenshot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:15:01 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:43:49 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:33:32 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:05:54 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:10:50 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:11:59 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:55:59 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:57:40 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:55:03 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_8.patch (55.71 KB) Updated once more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:52:08 +0000 : Dries Anyone to help review/test this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:22:36 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:27:05 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:27:49 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_10.patch (49.67 KB) I am probably slowly going mad ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 02 Feb 2005 01:54:58 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:20:51 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:31:05 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:16:54 +0000 : 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). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:19:14 +0000 : 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... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:07:27 +0000 : 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:50:59 +0000 : Junyor 0 results here. I started using Drupal with version 4.4, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:56:18 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:17:55 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:44:23 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 05 Feb 2005 07:16:22 +0000 : 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? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 05 Feb 2005 11:22:59 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 06 Feb 2005 12:49:55 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_16.patch (52.49 KB) Updated to apply to cvs again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:15:40 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 04 Mar 2005 04:22:58 +0000 : 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? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:27:03 +0000 : 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:51:56 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 08 Mar 2005 05:56:01 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:58:41 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:59:45 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:12:21 +0000 : 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:29:42 +0000 : 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:29:23 +0000 : moshe weitzman 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" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:43:42 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_24.patch (60.39 KB) Updated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:16:32 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_24_0.patch (60.39 KB) Updated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 19 Apr 2005 05:19:42 +0000 : Dries I'll commit this patch later this week! If you haven't checked this patch already, I urge you to test/check it out because it will have significant impact on existing code and modules! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 19 Apr 2005 05:21:33 +0000 : Dries Also, what do people think about the n.title being duplicated? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 19 Apr 2005 05:26:58 +0000 : chx I won't lose any sleep because of duplicated titles... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:35:58 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Let me explain why I have chosen to duplicate the title (and also the uid): If you look at all the queries in Drupal, you will find that most of them only need the title and th uid of a node. That is, by duplicating it, we save expensive joins on the node_revisions table. Due to this fact, this patch is actually a performance improvement. A note about updating contrib module: Strictly speaking they wouldn't need to be updated. They only need to if their authors decide that their info should be available for revisioning. The upgrade path for forum.module in my update.inc patch (+ the forum patch) should show you what needs to be done. I will write a note for the update page once the patch hits core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:21:19 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_25.patch (60.38 KB) Updated to cvs. Dries: Based on some remarks in #drupal this is the last update I am going to do. Apply it or won't fix it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 30 Apr 2005 03:42:39 +0000 : Jeremy(a)kerneltrap.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_25.patch.patch (528 bytes) That's a big patch. I've only started looking through it. I noticed one little typo, affecting updates. A patch to your last patch is attached. I'm running with the revision patch on my dev server now happily. I like the concept. What happens if you click 'stop' on your browser in the middle of a MySQL "transaction"? I assume that kills the connection to MySQL, and the lock is freed? But this then leaves changes only partially applied? What exactly does locking/unlocking the tables buy us in MySQL? I don't see anywhere that we detect if an apply fails part way through, and thus roll back...? What am I missing? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:11:28 +0000 : Dries Jeremy: many of us are worried about the performance ramifications this patch introduces. Early experiments showed a small performance improvement (while a performance regression might be expected). More performance reports from large sites like kerneltrap.org will certainly help this patch. Mind to do a quick performance comparision and to report back with some numbers? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:38:02 +0000 : Jeremy(a)kerneltrap.org Dries: I'm not running HEAD on kerneltrap, so this really isn't a possibility. Furthermore, until I understand why we're locking tables, I don't like it. The idea of revisions in their own tables is great. The idea of locking tables to get (without any obvious benefit) there really worries me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:16:01 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org @Jeremy: Thanks for looking at the patch! Also for catching the typo. :) Did you try to upgrade your database? If yes, how did it go? One of Dries' concerns is the complexity of the upgrade. How many nodes and revisions did the db have? About database locking: This part of the patch was created by Nick and I simply continued to use it. Maybe the code should rather be: if(db_begin_transaction(array('{node}', '{node_revisions}', '{watchdog}', '{sessions}', '{files}'))) { db_query($node_query, $node_table_values); db_query($revisions_query, $revisions_table_values); db_commit_transaction(); ... } The idea is probably to avoid two updates at the same time. I don't think the locking helps if you abort the script at an inconvenient time. Rollbacks aren't implemented in all mysql versions. We could omit the db locking if deemed inappropriate. Maybe Nick can explain his ideas behind this. @Dries: I wonder who the "many of us" are. They certainly haven't spoken to me. Moshe had some reservations about the upgrade path and project module, but the time that project module abused revisions to store issue updates was long ago and his reservations were resolved. Nobody else (besides you of course and now Jeremy) has voiced reservations in a way that was audible to me. If you grep through the patch you will notice that there are only four queries which have a join on the node_revisions table. Two of them are in node_load and in the other cases the join replaced a join on the node table. The two queries in node_load are the only ones that have both a join on the node and the revisions query. Thus, loading of individual nodes might become somewhat slower. All other queries will be faster since the node table is now much smaller. Also, node loading does not have to be slower, it depends on your node table. If you had a lot of revisions and thus a large table, then the new scheme will make your queries actually faster since we do not load the revisions on each and every node load anymore. If you didn't have many revisions your node_load migth be somewhat slower. WRT to the update script Karoly pointed out that we could use multiple insert queries instead one query per revision. This would probably make the update somewhat faster. I am willing to work on this iff you declare that you will commit the patch afterwards. I'd need to know if this will work on pgsql and on all supported mysql versions before I work on it. About locking: Database locking is dog slow, at least on mysql. I was using locks in an earlier version of the upgrade script but had to remove it for (serious!) performance reasons. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 15:07:34 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_26.patch (46.45 KB) Ok, another update, cause I need it myself. I've left out the transaction stuff for now. It is in principle unrelated to this patch and should be discussed elsewhere. This also makes the patch smaller and easier to review (hint, hint). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 20:32:09 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org The patch contained the update functions twice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 20:32:26 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_27.patch (39.05 KB) The patch contained the update functions twice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 21:23:06 +0000 : Dries Got one error during the upgrade path: ALTER TABLE {book} ADD PRIMARY KEY vid (vid) FAILED ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 21:26:19 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org This had happend to me as well, when I tested this patch. The reason is that for some reason the vid is not unique. Most likely there are some entries with vid = 0 in there. Can you check which node types those have? it always was an error in the test database. See: http://drupal.org/node/7582#comment-20678 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 21:27:06 +0000 : Dries Actually, I got 2850 errors during the upgrade. Some of these: sprintf() [function.sprintf]: Too few arguments in drupal-cvs/includes/database.inc on line 154. Some of these: Query was empty query: in drupal-cvs/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 66. And this: Unknown table 'n' in field list query: SELECT n.nid, n.vid FROM node INNER JOIN files f ON n.nid = f.nid in drupal-cvs/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 66. :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 21:29:19 +0000 : Dries Or this: user error: Unknown column 'log' in 'field list' query: SELECT parent, weight, log FROM book WHERE nid = 1 in drupal-cvs/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 66 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 21:52:12 +0000 : Dries The time required to generate my main page went from 902 ms (before upgrade) to 2139 ms (after upgrade). The time required to generate a forum listing (?q=forum/x) went from 1872 ms (before upgrade) to 2874 ms (after upgrade). Maybe this is because my database is not consistent as the result of the upgrade errors (yet I don't see any errors on the pages I benchmarked). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 10 May 2005 00:24:38 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_28.patch (53.47 KB) Ok, let me get to this from the bottom to the top: - my test runs indicated a different development wrt timing. If I had gotten your results, I had stopped working on this long ago. So your results are wrong for some reason. - user error: Unknown column 'log' in 'field list' Wasn't my day, the book patch got lost. It is contained now. First -R the old patch, then apply this one. - Unknown table 'n' in field list query: Walkah found this, but I forgot to fix it. Fixed now. - I've no idea where the other queries come from. I am hoping that either your test db is borken or they are follow ups from the other ones. If you let me have your test db, I'll try some debugging. Thanks for wasting your time, too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 10 May 2005 05:07:31 +0000 : Dries I double-checked and the numbers don't seem to lie. I'll test some more after work on another machine to make sure it is not platform-specific. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 11 May 2005 03:32:47 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_29.patch (54.83 KB) Ok, here I am again. What I did: 1) Ask Dries to let me have drupal.org database 2) get 400MB of SQL inserts... 3) take 23 minutes to import said data 4) Remove all image and project nodes (don't want to install their modules), 11765 nodes left 5) back up data 6) take tests on non-cached /node page (as anonymous user). ab results: -c 1 -n 25: Requests per second: 1.29 [#/sec] (mean) Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Total: 663 775 179.7 689 1264 7) Do the same for the tracker page: Requests per second: 0.83 [#/sec] (mean) Total: 1182 1199 7.4 1199 1217 8) Apply my patch (rev. 28). 9) run db update and hold breath 10) update times out... 11) play back backup from 5) 12) wait 13) getting annoyed and removing cache, watchdog, and accesslog before playing in backup. 14) wait again. Understand why Dries doesn't try this patch often. Maybe a smaller DB would do for testing? 15) wait more. get really annoyed. 16) Set time limit to 18000 in update.php 17) try again 18) fails again before the second update is completed. 19) curse. 20) delete search stuff from db. Ooops, sooo much smaller... 21) import again, below 2 minutes... 22) rewrite to use extended insert. Found a bug. 23) still does not complete. Mysql logging to the rescue! 24) tid = 0? Not good. 25) Well, the update works fine till node 10834. 5595 nodes done, 6136 to go. 26) Writing shell based update script. Discovery: 24MB aren't enough. Hopefully 64 are. Nope. extended inserts for revisions are apparently not the brightest idea: Huge memory consumption. Hmm, no, all updates got through. Selecting the revisions to put them into old_revisions table screwed it. Learned about CREATE TABLE old_revisions SELECT syntax. Yay! finally. 24 MB are just not enough the update.php script seems to still break. 27) Benchmarks! /node Requests per second: 1.54 [#/sec] (mean) Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Total: 632 649 40.5 636 791 /tracker Requests per second: 0.86 [#/sec] (mean) Total: 1119 1165 65.8 1160 1461 Ok: So we get an improvement for many node_loads, but none for simple selects from node. More tests can be done. 28) roll new patch Ain't Drupal fun? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 18 May 2005 13:38:05 +0000 : Dries I did another round of tests on _another_ machine and it is not looking good: Before upgrade After upgrade ?q= (main page) 218 ms/request 340 ms/request ?q=forum (forum overview) 754 ms/request 1520 ms/request ?q=about (book page) 375 ms/request 5400 ms/request The upgrade process itself gave me a number of 'query was empty' and 'sprintf(): too few arguments' reports. Everything seems to work fine though. Looking at the ?q=about page, I see that the following query is executed twice _and_ that each time, it take more than 2 seconds to complete: SELECT n.nid, n.title, b.parent, b.weight FROM node n INNER JOIN book b ON n.vid = b.vid WHERE n.status = 1 AND n.moderate = 0 ORDER BY b.weight, n.title; --8 SHOW INDEX FROM book; +-------+------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+ | Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment | +-------+------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+ | book | 1 | book_parent | 1 | parent | A | 92 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | | book | 1 | nid | 1 | nid | A | 369 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | +-------+------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+ 2 rows in set (0.00 sec) The book module does not appear to have a primary key? Sounds like a bad idea so I added one: mysql> ALTER TABLE book ADD PRIMARY KEY nid (nid); Query OK, 369 rows affected (0.02 sec) Records: 369 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0 Next, I wanted to make the vid column a unique key in all node tables: mysql> ALTER TABLE node ADD UNIQUE vid (vid); Query OK, 20392 rows affected (0.81 sec) Records: 20392 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0 mysql> ALTER TABLE book ADD UNIQUE vid (vid); ERROR 1062: Duplicate entry '0' for key 2 mysql> ALTER TABLE forum ADD UNIQUE vid (vid); Query OK, 10806 rows affected (0.10 sec) Records: 10806 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0 As you can see, it fails for the book table which makes me believe there is some inconsistent data ... I set out to fix that: mysql> SELECT nid, COUNT(nid) AS vids FROM book GROUP BY vid HAVING vids > 1; +-----+------+ | nid | vids | +-----+------+ | 871 | 2 | +-----+------+ 1 row in set (0.00 sec) mysql> SELECT title FROM node WHERE nid = 871; Empty set (0.00 sec) mysql> DELETE FROM book WHERE nid = 871; Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec) mysql> ALTER TABLE book ADD UNIQUE vid (vid); Query OK, 368 rows affected (0.01 sec) Records: 368 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0 Looks like everything is well now. Ran some new benchmarks: Before upgrade After upgrade With indices ?q= (main page) 218 ms/request 340 ms/request 336 ms/request ?q=forum (forum overview) 754 ms/request 1520 ms/request 1531 ms/request ?q=about (book page) 375 ms/request 5400 ms/request 475 ms/request Unfortunately, we're still slower than the original code. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 18 May 2005 21:53:31 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Dries, thanks for testing it again. I do think the broken queries you observer have something to do with the bad performance after the update. Please log the queries any I will have a look at them. I've never seen any such queries. My update script also tries to create the appropriate indices, but it will of course fail if the database contains cruft. the indices for the forum are probably missing, too. I am still convinced that the patch is core worthy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 19 May 2005 04:36:09 +0000 : Dries It wouldn't hurt if more people would benchmark this patch. The patch's current performance worries me. Did you check your watchdog messages after upgrading the drupal.org database? Depending on your settings, errors might only be shown in the watchdog. I'll look into the remaining glitches as time permits. Thanks for your persistence in keeping this patch up-to-date. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 19 May 2005 11:59:22 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Dries: Can you please let me have your updated database? I want to have a look at it and try my own benchmarks with it. And yes, if I did learn something on this project is how to be persistant. ;) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:25:34 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Here is an idea that occurred to me: The problem with the upgrade process is that keeping the existing revisions requires a lot of work to do. This generates a huge amount of sql queries for a large database and also requires a huge amount of memory. My suggestions is to let update.php only handle the basic upgrade, ie without old revisions. An additional module could be created that would implement a cron based approach to upgrading old revisions one node at a time. it could expose a hook to let contrib modules do their own upgrades. Dries, what do you think? (I am writing "Dries" because he seems to be the only one who is interested in getting this into core...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:25:11 +0000 : Junyor Killes: I'm also interested in seeing this hit core. What about adding something to legacy.module to do it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:14:54 +0000 : chx This is a sensible approach. Maybe this is the _only_ sensible approach. I have a little problem though: while the conversion is running somehow both revision handlers should be available. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:16:21 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org hehe, one only has to whine and bug enough and one gets some feedback. ;) @junyor: legacy.module would be a good place. my current idea is to auto-enable it in update.php and then disable it again in legacy_cron after all nodes are updated.. ;) @chx: When somebody wants to look at revisions of a node that node could be auto-updated. The only problem are contrib modules: they's need to have some hook in order to update their own data. When somebody looks at the revisions of a node than cannot be updated because the contrib module in question has no such hook, we can optionally let the user discard old revisions I guess. Dries, what do you think? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:48:51 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_30.patch (53.13 KB) Sooooo; I've updated this patch once again. Dries didn't like my idea of legacy updates so we will have an option to discard old revisions in case the update should prove difficult. Always keep a backup. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:31:12 +0000 : Bèr Kessels can we please accept and commit this patch? We can iron out any issues later. This patch is just far too big and complex to be perfect-at-once. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:22:50 +0000 : Dries @Ber: no, we can't commit this patch blindly. Data loss is a much bigger problem than a syntax error or other code glitch. We can break Drupal but we can't break their data. I've spent quite a bit of time testing the previous version of this patch and noticed significant performance degradation. Tell me, Ber, why can't you test this patch first? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:40:37 +0000 : Bèr Kessels I was not referring to not testing it. If it is just the upgrade path that proves to be cumbersome, then why can we not fix it afterwards, I.e. when everyone has had a good chance to look at it. Testing such a huge patch requires a lot of work. something no-one just does in his spare hours. We had discussions before to deal in a slightly different way with big changes; to commit them quicker and to leave the ironing out of any left overs for the community. I hooked into that discussion here. For two reasons. One is that Gerhard has spent numerous hours on maintaining this patch. The other one is that the community can be of help with ironing out issues in such a large change, much better than that Gerhard can do on his own. And yes, dataloss is very bad, but no-one should loose data, when he/she followed the instructions (backing up)... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:00:38 +0000 : Dries Ber: applying this patch takes 15 seconds. Whether I apply this patch for you, or whether you apply it yourself, it will hardly reduce the 'testing cost'. The problem is that data loss can be subtle; it might go unnoticed for a couple days. Make no mistake, I'd like to see this patch committed ASAP, but it warrants some testing. Let's test/benchmark it and commit it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:55:03 +0000 : drumm The upgrade script already takes a long time to execute and does not provide feedback to the user about how it is doing. I plan on making the upgrade script able to spread the updates across multiple page views and give user feedback showing that progress is being made. This will hopefully make the speed of this update a moot point. I am working on this for my dayjob, CivicSpace, so it should get done "real soon now", but it should be expected to take awhile (smallish number of weeks). Please make comprimises if necessary. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:38:57 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_31.patch (48.78 KB) @drumm: the timeout isn't usually the problem. Memory consumption is. I'll look into doing the updates in chunks of 1000 nodes or so. Clousseau found a bug in the patch, updated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:28:08 +0000 : moshe weitzman Even if the upgrade issues are resolved, we have to figure out why this patch is slowing down drupal (according to benchmarks posted here). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 29 Jul 2005 07:51:45 +0000 : Dries We can't proceed without some additional benchmarking. I already benchmarked it on two machines (see comments above), and I'll benchmark it again after August 10. The performance impact of this patch worries me so if two other people could test and benchmark this patch extensively, that would come a long way. August 10 is close to the code freeze so some help is necessary. If Gerhard/killes reviewed/tested one of your patches, it is time to return the favor ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:40:31 +0000 : Jose A Reyero After looking at the patch I'm not really surprised this slows down everything. I thought that the reason why we wanted revisions in their own table was in the first place to have a simpler -and faster- node table. But this patch: - Adds fields and complexity not only to the node table but also to all the main tables for data - Needs additional joins just to retrieve single nodes (which is done many times for a typical main page) - Does away with encapsulation of the revision functionality requiring other modules to handle revissions related data. So please, please, please: - Make revisions table only needed when actually using revisions - Keep that old nice thing of hiding revisions system from other modules - And what's so bad with serializing data anyway? I agree that usually there are better ways to store data. But this is one of the cases where serialization does make sense. Not the current huge serialized field, but only a new table with one serialized node per row. - In general, do it much simpler. This is way too complex and it removes more functionality than it adds. In just four words: keep it simple, please. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:25:26 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_32.patch (51.27 KB) Patch updated (v31 was buggy, and there was an update to updates.inc). I've had a discussion with Jose and he will maybe do some testing over the weekend. John is also doing some testing as we speak. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:06:59 +0000 : Nick Nassar It has been exactly one year since I first submitted this patch. You know what that means: *old patch party in IRC!* Virtual beers on me! w00t! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:08:33 +0000 : Jose A Reyero Hi again. I had a talk with killes -I have to say he enlightned me about this- and also did some testing. Sorry but I dont have a good set up to provide benchmarks. Here are my conclusions -and also some explanation for the varied results abt performance: - This is faster for simple node listings - This is slower for full node/load ....thus the performance increase/decrease for a given page should depend on the relation between the number of simple node listings (usually blocks) and the number of nodes displayed in the main page. I've also experienced some trouble with attachments -not re-created when creating a new revision- and book relations, same. I'm not sure I like this new "feature" of creating a new revision every time you rollback an old one -in Drupal 4.6 this seems not to happen. Besides these details, I think this patch is good enough -and quite a powerful approach actually- though I still feel it's bit too complex when simply dealing with nodes -without revisions-, which is what we do most of the time, and complexity will be even higher with contrib modules using still more tables, not to mention flexinode -versioning info will have to be scattered everywhere in the db. So this is not a +1 nor -1. On one side I think this is powerful. On the other side I feel this is too complex and really, it's more than I need. I would be happy with a 'revision' table having: nid, vid, data(serialized), that you can forget about when not using revisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:16:41 +0000 : Nick Nassar On a much more serious note that my last comment, unless I'm missing something, you've introduced a subtle bug into this patch since I left it. A and B are both updating revision 5 of a node. A calls db_next_id() and gets a revision id of 6 B calls db_next_id() and gets a revision id of 7 B updates the node's revision to 7 B adds revision 7 to the revision table A updates the node's revision to 6 A adds revision 6 to the revision table Now, you have a situation where the current revision (6) isn't actually the last revision(7). For some uses, that's not a big deal, but in the case of wikis, which is what I originally hoped to use this patch for, it creates problems. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 01 Aug 2005 00:04:14 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_33.patch (51.27 KB) Updated the patch. updates.inc was changed and chx found a typo. @Nick: I don't think the issue is due to this patch. Drupal has currently no mechanism to not let people commit a new version of the same node, whether with or without revisions. drupal_next_id ensures that the revision IDs are unique and the later revisions will be the current one. Which revision is the current one does not depend on order of the version ID, btw. @Jose: what exactly were your problems with uploads? what do I need to do to reproduce? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:33:56 +0000 : Jose A Reyero Sorry, I dont know what I did the other day but I cannot reproduce it either :-) I applied this new patch. Problems I'm having now (Testing with "stories") - Book outline is gone after creating a new revision - I cannot delete attachments (not sure it is related to your patch or to something else) - Usage of the log message: Is that mensage intended for revisions or only for book outlines? Currently the field is displayed only for outlines but shown in the revision tab Btw, the db update failed for me in patch 32, so I did it manually. I didnt do a db update again after rolling back v32 and applying v33 -should I? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:03:41 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Jose, thanks a lot for testing! "- Book outline is gone after creating a new revision" Sounds like a bug, it should not. "- I cannot delete attachments (not sure it is related to your patch or to something else)" Another bug "- Usage of the log message: Is that mensage intended for revisions or only for book outlines? Currently the field is displayed only for outlines but shown in the revision tab" Log messages are possible for nodes of type book and page as well as all nodes that are put into the book. Log messages can be added for any node type, the module author should implement those. "Btw, the db update failed for me in patch 32, so I did it manually. I didnt do a db update again after rolling back v32 and applying v33 -should I?" No, the db update should be the same. I will try to fix the bugs you found. WRT the db update I've got an announcement to make: I will not migrate old revisions. Why? 1) it is a rather complicated process that requires a lot of memory and is likely to give people on cheap hosting trouble. 2) testing it takes a lot of time. 3) I don't personally need it I will still move old revisions to an old_revisions table from where they can be converted by a later update or a custom script.

1 0

[drupal-devel] PostgreSQL maintainer
by Khalid B 16 Aug '05

16 Aug '05

>From drupal-security Uwe Hermann wrote: > I'm against removing PostgreSQL support. Please ask the Polish translator > if he wants to maintain that stuff, otherwise post a public announcement > "Drupal PostgreSQL maintainer wanted!" on drupal.org, I'm sure someone > will step forward... If not, I'll have to learn to use PostgreSQL and > fix stuff myself ;-) Someone I know may be interested in maintaining the PostgreSQL version. Should I contact him and ask if he is willing to take this on?

4 3

[drupal-devel] [feature] Enable customizing of "Title" field on node forms
by Thox 16 Aug '05

16 Aug '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/10056 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/10056 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: Anonymous Updated by: Thox Status: patch (code needs review) Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/title-validation.patch (6.22 KB) attached again (issue preview seems busted?) Thox Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 14 Aug 2004 18:17:11 +0000 : Anonymous Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node.set-title-field.patch (2.02 KB) The default "title" field in a node object is useful but not always appropriate. For some node types it would be preferable to rename the field for display to users (e.g., from "title" to "name" for a record of an organization or business), while in others the title might be best drawn from a combination of other fields (e.g., first_name and last_name fields, for a record of an individual). This patch enables two new alternatives for node titles: renamingThe title field can be renamed, e.g., from "title" to "name". substutingOther fields can be substituted for the title field. The functionality is implemented through a new proposed node hook, _title_field($op). There are two possible values for $op: "action" (either "rename" or "substitute") and "names" (a list of field names to be used in the title field). Sample uses: [?PHP function example_title_field($node, $op) { switch ($op) { case 'action': $return = 'rename'; break; case 'names': $return = array('Name'); } return $return; } ?] In this case, since the requested action is "rename", the title field would be labelled "Name" (instead of "Title") in node add and edit forms for nodes of type "example". [?PHP function example_title_field($node, $op) { switch ($op) { case 'action': $return = 'substitute'; break; case 'names': $return = array('first_name', 'last_name'); } return $return; } ?] In this case, no "Title" field would be displayed in node add or node edit forms of node type "example". Instead, the fields "first_name" and "last_name" would be concatenated to form a title. Implementing this patch would significantly increase the flexibility of the node system, making it feasible to store information of many types not currently supported because they don't have a "title" attribute. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:39:37 +0000 : Dries This is best accomplished through the existing nodeapi hook, using a separate module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:02:13 +0000 : nedjo Thanks for the suggestion. I did look for a way to accomplish this through _nodeapi (and other existing hooks), but couldn't see how. The "title" field is hard-coded into node.module. The _nodeapi hook allows various types of manipulations, but not, so far as I could see, changes to elements that have been generated by, e.g., form_textfield() calls. Are there possibilities I'm missing? Other approaches? Any specific suggestions as to means we could use to change the hard-coded "title" field? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:27:15 +0000 : nedjo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node.set-title-field_0.patch (741 bytes) Drawing on Dries's suggestion, I've substantially revised this patch to enable node title field customization with only three additional lines of code in node.module. In place of the existing line in function node_form() <?php $output .= form_textfield(t('Title'), 'title', $edit->title, 60, 128, NULL, NULL, TRUE); ?> the patch substitutes a the following: <?php $title = variable_get('node_titlefield_'. $edit->type, 'Title'); if(!($title == 'none')) { $output .= form_textfield(t($title), 'title', $edit->title, 60, 128, NULL, NULL, TRUE); } ?> With this change in place, node modules will be able to override the standard node title label by setting a variable, node_titlefield_nodetype, where nodetype is the type of node. This could be done, e.g., in a _settings hook, so that the first time settings were accessed the module would set the variable: <?php if (variable_get('node_titlefield_example', '') == '') { // since none is already set, set this variable variable_set('node_titlefield_example', 'Name'); drupal_set_message('Example module initialization completed.'); } ?> The special value 'none' would suppress the title field altogether in node forms, used as follows: <?php if (variable_get('node_titlefield_example', '') == '') { // since none is already set, set this variable variable_set('node_titlefield_example', 'none'); drupal_set_message('Example module initialization completed.'); } ?> In this case, a _validate hook would be used to set the title field value. Assuming a module where a first name-last name combination was to be used for a title: <?php function example_validate(&$node) { if(!(isset($node->title))) { $node->title = $node->first_name . ' ' . node->last_name; } } ?> In short, this three-line addition to the node.module would significantly increase the flexibility of the node system by removing the hard-coded 'Title' field in node add and edit forms and instead enabling custom labelling or concatenation of the field from other sources. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:50:42 +0000 : moshe weitzman I like this functionality. But the implementation still seems unclean. I would prefer to simply remove the 'title' form field from node_form() and require that modules present this field in whatever way they please. in some cases, they will use a hidden form field because no customer interaction is required. This causes a break with backward compatibility, but cleanliness is facored over compatibilityness (when you must choose). I'm moving this back to 'Active', since I don't think this patch is committable as is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:46:45 +0000 : nedjo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node.set-title-field_1.patch (830 bytes) Thanks for looking at this. The suggestion - dropping the title field altogether and leaving this for module authors - has the advantage of simplicity. However, this change would imply significant new work as it would would require all or nearly all existing modules - core and contributed - be modified. While I think enabling title field customization is important for Drupal as a whole, and while this is a change I need for two modules I'm working on, I'm not immediately convinced that the benefits of this change justify this cost. Also, in most cases, the present title field works fine, so keeping it as a default option would I feel be desirable. Hence the following patch. In place of my (poorly conceived) initial hook proposals, above, this patch introduces a single very straightforward new node hook, _title_field. By setting this hook to return FALSE, node modules authors will suppress the default title field, and be free therefore to substitute what they wish or need. Returning TRUE, or not using the hook, will result in the default title field being used. Sample usage: <?php function example_title_field() { return FALSE; } ?> This is, I feel, a much better solution than the previous two I suggested--proof, if it's true, that the Drupal issue system works! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 06 Sep 2004 15:50:38 +0000 : nedjo Are there any objections to or issues raised by this small patch (introducing a new hook to make the title field optional in node forms)? If not, can it be applied? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:46:29 +0000 : Anonymous I think I agree with Moshe's opinion that this should be accomplished by having node modules display the title field. In any event, this is a new feature and shouldn't go in during the feature freeze for 4.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:58:34 +0000 : ccourtne +1 for just moving the title field to be a responsibility of the implementing module instead of node_form. There is already to some extent "hook overload", in addition there may be several modules which don't want to even display a title module. Why add that only fixes some of the problems just to have to remove it later when you make a fix that address the whole problem. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:09:53 +0000 : nedjo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node.remove-title-field.patch (636 bytes) Thanks for comments. As per feedback, the attached patch removes the title field from node forms, leaving this instead to node modules. Understood that possible approval of this patch this will need to wait until code unfrozen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:06:46 +0000 : moshe weitzman please patch all core node modules as well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 28 Nov 2004 01:00:31 +0000 : nedjo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node-move-form-title-field.patch (4.29 KB) Good point Moshe. This patch of node.module plus all core node modules simply moves the title field out of node.module and into the node modules, enabling (if desired) customization of the title field by a module. Patches to contributed modules will in most cases be as simple as adding the line <?php $output = form_textfield(t('Subject'), 'title', $node->title, 60, 128, NULL, NULL, TRUE); ?> at the beginning of a typename_form() function (and, if necessary changing an existing $output = to $output .=). In the attached patch, I've customized the title field for only one of the node types, calling the title of a forum topic the "Subject". We could consider calling the title of a blog a "Subject" or "Topic" as well. I feel this is a good solution (thanks for the feedback and discussion) and, for minimal work (minor updates to contributed modules), will have the significant benefit of enabling flexibility in content types beyond those that have "title" attributes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:45:35 +0000 : nedjo Ability to customize title as provided in this patch was requested here [1]: "When adding/editing, the 'title' field is manditory, which is fine. Except that its label is hardcoded to 'title'. A custom node modelling, say, a 'Company' would much rather this field be presented to the user as 'Company Name'. " [1] http://drupal.org/node/13596 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 04 Mar 2005 03:44:55 +0000 : nedjo Here's another patch that's sat for months without being either applied or turned down, although there was expressed support and, after several iterations, it addressed all issues that had been raised. The point is to remove the hard-coded "Title" field - inapprioriate for many node types, e.g., companies - from node forms, instead allowing node modules to treat this as appropriate (e.g., a "Subject", "Name" or "Topic", or nothing at all). Are there problems with this approach that were not raised? Is there a reason this wasn't accepted? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 04 Mar 2005 03:54:02 +0000 : Steven nedjo: if you read the backlog you can see that this feature was delayed for after the 4.6 release. "I've customized the title field for only one of the node types, calling the title of a forum topic the "Subject". " This is really inconsistent, as what you call the title of a blog, story or forum node is purely subjective. "Subject" "Topic" and "Title" are pretty much interchageable and any subtle differences will surely be eroded by translation. The only thing I can agree on so far is naming a polls' title "Question". ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 04 Mar 2005 05:15:03 +0000 : nedjo Thanks for the note. I'm not sure what you mean by the "backlog". Where would I find this? I agree that a "Question" field would make sense for polls. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:12:56 +0000 : JonBob Actually UnConeD, it was postponed until after the 4.5 release, not 4.6, and looks like everyone forgot about it when the release happened. And no, Nedjo, I don't take this as proof that Drupal needs more bureaucracy. :-) Marking this active again; I'm sure the patch will have to be updated once the code branches. We had rolled this function into the needs for CCK, but in our discussions split it off again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 03 Apr 2005 05:28:08 +0000 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node-move-form-title-field_0.patch (4.59 KB) The patch applies to ucrrent HEAD with some offset. I have rerolled it so it applies cleanly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 20 May 2005 10:09:50 +0000 : chx Patch still applies (yes, with some offset, but applies). ANd yes, we need this very badly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 20 May 2005 10:18:49 +0000 : Thox I'd benefit greatly from having a feature like this. The example already given is one of the cases I need it: I'd like the title field to be a concatenation of two fields: "First name" and "Last name". ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 24 May 2005 03:39:40 +0000 : gsperk I wonder if someone could help me with the following problem. After applying the patch I made the output for 'title' in my own_node.module this: $output .= form_hidden('title', $node->firstname . ' ' . $node->surname); When the form is first submitted I get the error 'You have to specify a title'. When I submit again the firstname/surname variables are obviously in $node, and the form submits with the desired title. So, I suppose my question is, how can get the values for firstname and surname into $node without submitting twice? (If it's not obvious I can confirm that I dont have much experience with this kind of stuff. Any suggestions would be a big help.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 25 May 2005 04:23:41 +0000 : Steven To make this patch work you also need to move the title validation out of node.module and into the node modules. I don't think this is that much of a problem, it is code that is not going to be touched much. Also, in light of the upcoming CCK it makes sense to do it like this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:02:26 +0000 : hanoii Nice thread. I have come up with a slightly different approach I think that would need less patching/updating of other modules. Drupal 4.6.2 node.module:1275 <?php // Get the node-specific bits. // We can't use node_invoke() because $param must be passed by reference. $function = node_get_module_name($edit) .'_form'; $param = array(); if (function_exists($function)) { $form .= $function($edit, $param, $title); } ?> Notice the $title param on the hook_form invoke. This was what I added. As that hook is called like this an not with the node_invoke() I can define on my custom node module, or patch any module I need to modify the title description with the following hook: <?php function budget_form(&$node, &$params, &$title) { ?> and modify the $title argument there, as it is by reference, It will me modified on node.module. Then again on node.module:1319 I added/changed the following: <?php if ( ! $title ) { $title = t('Title') ; } $output .= form_textfield($title, 'title', $edit->title, 60, 128, NULL, NULL, TRUE); ?> So, if the module modify the title var, it uses that, if not, it uses the default one. Worked for me so far, nice to post on drupal. Greetings, a.= ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:10:28 +0000 : hanoii I posted too soon the thing before... :) I did further patches because of the validation keep telling that I have tu put a "title". I was happy with the previous patch, not so much with this one, but I let you know what I did... on the node.module, node_validate() function I move the title validation block just after the <?php // Do node-type-specific validation checks. node_invoke($node, 'validate'); node_invoke_nodeapi($node, 'validate'); ?> and added another parameter to the form_set_error() <?php // Validate the title field. if (isset($node->title)) { if (trim($node->title) == '') { form_set_error('title', t('You have to specify a title.'), TRUE); } } ?> then, on the form_set_error function in common.inc I did the following: <?php /** * File an error against the form element with the specified name. */ function form_set_error($name, $message, $checkexistance = FALSE ) { if ( !$checkexistance || $checkexistance && !isset($GLOBALS['form'][$name]) ) { $GLOBALS['form'][$name] = $message; drupal_set_message($message, 'error'); } } ?> So now, if any previous title error was added, and the $checkexistance flag is TRUE, no error will be added to the message queue. The moving place of the validation block was to let the modules validate first than the node module. Errrr.. I don't like it, but again, it worked :) a.= ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 01 Aug 2005 00:54:22 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/title_0.patch (4.56 KB) I've updated the patch to apply to current cvs. As progress on the CCK has been rather slow, I'd appreciate if somebody could address Steven's concerns and the patch could be applied. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:19:23 +0000 : Thox Attached is a patch with an attempt to move the title validation code into the node modules (from node.module).

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Enable customizing of "Title" field on node forms
by Thox 16 Aug '05

16 Aug '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/10056 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/10056 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: Anonymous Updated by: Thox -Status: patch (code needs work) +Status: patch (code needs review) Attached is a patch with an attempt to move the title validation code into the node modules (from node.module). Thox Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 14 Aug 2004 18:17:11 +0000 : Anonymous Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node.set-title-field.patch (2.02 KB) The default "title" field in a node object is useful but not always appropriate. For some node types it would be preferable to rename the field for display to users (e.g., from "title" to "name" for a record of an organization or business), while in others the title might be best drawn from a combination of other fields (e.g., first_name and last_name fields, for a record of an individual). This patch enables two new alternatives for node titles: renamingThe title field can be renamed, e.g., from "title" to "name". substutingOther fields can be substituted for the title field. The functionality is implemented through a new proposed node hook, _title_field($op). There are two possible values for $op: "action" (either "rename" or "substitute") and "names" (a list of field names to be used in the title field). Sample uses: [?PHP function example_title_field($node, $op) { switch ($op) { case 'action': $return = 'rename'; break; case 'names': $return = array('Name'); } return $return; } ?] In this case, since the requested action is "rename", the title field would be labelled "Name" (instead of "Title") in node add and edit forms for nodes of type "example". [?PHP function example_title_field($node, $op) { switch ($op) { case 'action': $return = 'substitute'; break; case 'names': $return = array('first_name', 'last_name'); } return $return; } ?] In this case, no "Title" field would be displayed in node add or node edit forms of node type "example". Instead, the fields "first_name" and "last_name" would be concatenated to form a title. Implementing this patch would significantly increase the flexibility of the node system, making it feasible to store information of many types not currently supported because they don't have a "title" attribute. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:39:37 +0000 : Dries This is best accomplished through the existing nodeapi hook, using a separate module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:02:13 +0000 : nedjo Thanks for the suggestion. I did look for a way to accomplish this through _nodeapi (and other existing hooks), but couldn't see how. The "title" field is hard-coded into node.module. The _nodeapi hook allows various types of manipulations, but not, so far as I could see, changes to elements that have been generated by, e.g., form_textfield() calls. Are there possibilities I'm missing? Other approaches? Any specific suggestions as to means we could use to change the hard-coded "title" field? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:27:15 +0000 : nedjo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node.set-title-field_0.patch (741 bytes) Drawing on Dries's suggestion, I've substantially revised this patch to enable node title field customization with only three additional lines of code in node.module. In place of the existing line in function node_form() <?php $output .= form_textfield(t('Title'), 'title', $edit->title, 60, 128, NULL, NULL, TRUE); ?> the patch substitutes a the following: <?php $title = variable_get('node_titlefield_'. $edit->type, 'Title'); if(!($title == 'none')) { $output .= form_textfield(t($title), 'title', $edit->title, 60, 128, NULL, NULL, TRUE); } ?> With this change in place, node modules will be able to override the standard node title label by setting a variable, node_titlefield_nodetype, where nodetype is the type of node. This could be done, e.g., in a _settings hook, so that the first time settings were accessed the module would set the variable: <?php if (variable_get('node_titlefield_example', '') == '') { // since none is already set, set this variable variable_set('node_titlefield_example', 'Name'); drupal_set_message('Example module initialization completed.'); } ?> The special value 'none' would suppress the title field altogether in node forms, used as follows: <?php if (variable_get('node_titlefield_example', '') == '') { // since none is already set, set this variable variable_set('node_titlefield_example', 'none'); drupal_set_message('Example module initialization completed.'); } ?> In this case, a _validate hook would be used to set the title field value. Assuming a module where a first name-last name combination was to be used for a title: <?php function example_validate(&$node) { if(!(isset($node->title))) { $node->title = $node->first_name . ' ' . node->last_name; } } ?> In short, this three-line addition to the node.module would significantly increase the flexibility of the node system by removing the hard-coded 'Title' field in node add and edit forms and instead enabling custom labelling or concatenation of the field from other sources. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:50:42 +0000 : moshe weitzman I like this functionality. But the implementation still seems unclean. I would prefer to simply remove the 'title' form field from node_form() and require that modules present this field in whatever way they please. in some cases, they will use a hidden form field because no customer interaction is required. This causes a break with backward compatibility, but cleanliness is facored over compatibilityness (when you must choose). I'm moving this back to 'Active', since I don't think this patch is committable as is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:46:45 +0000 : nedjo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node.set-title-field_1.patch (830 bytes) Thanks for looking at this. The suggestion - dropping the title field altogether and leaving this for module authors - has the advantage of simplicity. However, this change would imply significant new work as it would would require all or nearly all existing modules - core and contributed - be modified. While I think enabling title field customization is important for Drupal as a whole, and while this is a change I need for two modules I'm working on, I'm not immediately convinced that the benefits of this change justify this cost. Also, in most cases, the present title field works fine, so keeping it as a default option would I feel be desirable. Hence the following patch. In place of my (poorly conceived) initial hook proposals, above, this patch introduces a single very straightforward new node hook, _title_field. By setting this hook to return FALSE, node modules authors will suppress the default title field, and be free therefore to substitute what they wish or need. Returning TRUE, or not using the hook, will result in the default title field being used. Sample usage: <?php function example_title_field() { return FALSE; } ?> This is, I feel, a much better solution than the previous two I suggested--proof, if it's true, that the Drupal issue system works! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 06 Sep 2004 15:50:38 +0000 : nedjo Are there any objections to or issues raised by this small patch (introducing a new hook to make the title field optional in node forms)? If not, can it be applied? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:46:29 +0000 : Anonymous I think I agree with Moshe's opinion that this should be accomplished by having node modules display the title field. In any event, this is a new feature and shouldn't go in during the feature freeze for 4.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:58:34 +0000 : ccourtne +1 for just moving the title field to be a responsibility of the implementing module instead of node_form. There is already to some extent "hook overload", in addition there may be several modules which don't want to even display a title module. Why add that only fixes some of the problems just to have to remove it later when you make a fix that address the whole problem. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:09:53 +0000 : nedjo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node.remove-title-field.patch (636 bytes) Thanks for comments. As per feedback, the attached patch removes the title field from node forms, leaving this instead to node modules. Understood that possible approval of this patch this will need to wait until code unfrozen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:06:46 +0000 : moshe weitzman please patch all core node modules as well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 28 Nov 2004 01:00:31 +0000 : nedjo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node-move-form-title-field.patch (4.29 KB) Good point Moshe. This patch of node.module plus all core node modules simply moves the title field out of node.module and into the node modules, enabling (if desired) customization of the title field by a module. Patches to contributed modules will in most cases be as simple as adding the line <?php $output = form_textfield(t('Subject'), 'title', $node->title, 60, 128, NULL, NULL, TRUE); ?> at the beginning of a typename_form() function (and, if necessary changing an existing $output = to $output .=). In the attached patch, I've customized the title field for only one of the node types, calling the title of a forum topic the "Subject". We could consider calling the title of a blog a "Subject" or "Topic" as well. I feel this is a good solution (thanks for the feedback and discussion) and, for minimal work (minor updates to contributed modules), will have the significant benefit of enabling flexibility in content types beyond those that have "title" attributes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:45:35 +0000 : nedjo Ability to customize title as provided in this patch was requested here [1]: "When adding/editing, the 'title' field is manditory, which is fine. Except that its label is hardcoded to 'title'. A custom node modelling, say, a 'Company' would much rather this field be presented to the user as 'Company Name'. " [1] http://drupal.org/node/13596 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 04 Mar 2005 03:44:55 +0000 : nedjo Here's another patch that's sat for months without being either applied or turned down, although there was expressed support and, after several iterations, it addressed all issues that had been raised. The point is to remove the hard-coded "Title" field - inapprioriate for many node types, e.g., companies - from node forms, instead allowing node modules to treat this as appropriate (e.g., a "Subject", "Name" or "Topic", or nothing at all). Are there problems with this approach that were not raised? Is there a reason this wasn't accepted? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 04 Mar 2005 03:54:02 +0000 : Steven nedjo: if you read the backlog you can see that this feature was delayed for after the 4.6 release. "I've customized the title field for only one of the node types, calling the title of a forum topic the "Subject". " This is really inconsistent, as what you call the title of a blog, story or forum node is purely subjective. "Subject" "Topic" and "Title" are pretty much interchageable and any subtle differences will surely be eroded by translation. The only thing I can agree on so far is naming a polls' title "Question". ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 04 Mar 2005 05:15:03 +0000 : nedjo Thanks for the note. I'm not sure what you mean by the "backlog". Where would I find this? I agree that a "Question" field would make sense for polls. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:12:56 +0000 : JonBob Actually UnConeD, it was postponed until after the 4.5 release, not 4.6, and looks like everyone forgot about it when the release happened. And no, Nedjo, I don't take this as proof that Drupal needs more bureaucracy. :-) Marking this active again; I'm sure the patch will have to be updated once the code branches. We had rolled this function into the needs for CCK, but in our discussions split it off again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 03 Apr 2005 05:28:08 +0000 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node-move-form-title-field_0.patch (4.59 KB) The patch applies to ucrrent HEAD with some offset. I have rerolled it so it applies cleanly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 20 May 2005 10:09:50 +0000 : chx Patch still applies (yes, with some offset, but applies). ANd yes, we need this very badly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 20 May 2005 10:18:49 +0000 : Thox I'd benefit greatly from having a feature like this. The example already given is one of the cases I need it: I'd like the title field to be a concatenation of two fields: "First name" and "Last name". ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 24 May 2005 03:39:40 +0000 : gsperk I wonder if someone could help me with the following problem. After applying the patch I made the output for 'title' in my own_node.module this: $output .= form_hidden('title', $node->firstname . ' ' . $node->surname); When the form is first submitted I get the error 'You have to specify a title'. When I submit again the firstname/surname variables are obviously in $node, and the form submits with the desired title. So, I suppose my question is, how can get the values for firstname and surname into $node without submitting twice? (If it's not obvious I can confirm that I dont have much experience with this kind of stuff. Any suggestions would be a big help.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 25 May 2005 04:23:41 +0000 : Steven To make this patch work you also need to move the title validation out of node.module and into the node modules. I don't think this is that much of a problem, it is code that is not going to be touched much. Also, in light of the upcoming CCK it makes sense to do it like this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:02:26 +0000 : hanoii Nice thread. I have come up with a slightly different approach I think that would need less patching/updating of other modules. Drupal 4.6.2 node.module:1275 <?php // Get the node-specific bits. // We can't use node_invoke() because $param must be passed by reference. $function = node_get_module_name($edit) .'_form'; $param = array(); if (function_exists($function)) { $form .= $function($edit, $param, $title); } ?> Notice the $title param on the hook_form invoke. This was what I added. As that hook is called like this an not with the node_invoke() I can define on my custom node module, or patch any module I need to modify the title description with the following hook: <?php function budget_form(&$node, &$params, &$title) { ?> and modify the $title argument there, as it is by reference, It will me modified on node.module. Then again on node.module:1319 I added/changed the following: <?php if ( ! $title ) { $title = t('Title') ; } $output .= form_textfield($title, 'title', $edit->title, 60, 128, NULL, NULL, TRUE); ?> So, if the module modify the title var, it uses that, if not, it uses the default one. Worked for me so far, nice to post on drupal. Greetings, a.= ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:10:28 +0000 : hanoii I posted too soon the thing before... :) I did further patches because of the validation keep telling that I have tu put a "title". I was happy with the previous patch, not so much with this one, but I let you know what I did... on the node.module, node_validate() function I move the title validation block just after the <?php // Do node-type-specific validation checks. node_invoke($node, 'validate'); node_invoke_nodeapi($node, 'validate'); ?> and added another parameter to the form_set_error() <?php // Validate the title field. if (isset($node->title)) { if (trim($node->title) == '') { form_set_error('title', t('You have to specify a title.'), TRUE); } } ?> then, on the form_set_error function in common.inc I did the following: <?php /** * File an error against the form element with the specified name. */ function form_set_error($name, $message, $checkexistance = FALSE ) { if ( !$checkexistance || $checkexistance && !isset($GLOBALS['form'][$name]) ) { $GLOBALS['form'][$name] = $message; drupal_set_message($message, 'error'); } } ?> So now, if any previous title error was added, and the $checkexistance flag is TRUE, no error will be added to the message queue. The moving place of the validation block was to let the modules validate first than the node module. Errrr.. I don't like it, but again, it worked :) a.= ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 01 Aug 2005 00:54:22 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/title_0.patch (4.56 KB) I've updated the patch to apply to current cvs. As progress on the CCK has been rather slow, I'd appreciate if somebody could address Steven's concerns and the patch could be applied.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Incorrect order of sql statements can make update fail
by Cvbge 16 Aug '05

16 Aug '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/28986 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/28986 Project: Drupal Version: 4.6.2 Component: postgresql database Category: bug reports Priority: critical Assigned to: Cvbge Reported by: Cvbge Updated by: Cvbge Status: patch (code needs review) Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/update_131.diff (1010 bytes) The code adds new column and then immediately sets it to NOT NULL. If there are any rows in the table the new column is NULL and setting it to NOT NULL fails. Changing the order or sql statesments solves the problem Cvbge

1 1

[drupal-devel] [bug] _db_query() shows each query error twice
by danielc 16 Aug '05

16 Aug '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/19942 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: database system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: danielc Updated by: danielc Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/database.silence.query.diff (1.2 KB) In _db_query(), when a query error happens, the error messages are displayed twice. First at the point of the pg_query()/mysql_query() call and then at the track_errors() call. Since there is an error handling/reporting process in place, the query calls should suppress error output by placing @'s in front of them. The attached patch does that for both the database.mysql.inc and database.pgsql.inc files. danielc

3 8

[drupal-devel] [task] Rewrite to use procedures and conditionally include xmlrpc.inc
by chx 16 Aug '05

16 Aug '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/7458 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/7458 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: base system Category: tasks Priority: normal Assigned to: chx Reported by: killes(a)www.drop.org Updated by: chx Status: patch (ready to be committed) Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/xmlrpc_cond_1.patch (4.69 KB) Steven found that the faster ./ is missing from xmlrpc.php chx Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:15:33 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Drupal includes xmlrpc.inc for every non-cached page view. However, the functions from the file are only rarely used. Therefore we need a patch that includes the file from the functions that want to use it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 02 May 2004 18:30:55 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/xmlrpc.patch (4.64 KB) Here is a patch that moves the include statement to the functiosn where xmlrpc.inc is actually needed. The patch coul dneed some testing as I do not use those modules (ping, bloggerapi) myself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 03 May 2004 21:34:39 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/xmlrpc_0.patch (6.38 KB) Patch updated, I had forgotten drupal.module. thanks to crschmidt for spotting this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 03 May 2004 22:17:52 +0000 : Steven drupal_xml_parser_create() does not require xmlrpc.inc... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 03 May 2004 22:27:55 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/xmlrpc_1.patch (6.06 KB) Ok, updated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 03 May 2004 22:41:53 +0000 : Dries If xmlrpc.php includes xmlrpc.inc, why do we have to include it in blogapi module's functions once more? Also, the inclusion of xmlrpc.inc in drupal.module can probably be avoided by including xmlrpc.inc in cron.php? Am I missing something? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 03 May 2004 22:49:58 +0000 : crschmidt Not all of the tasks in drupal.module are run with cron.php: for example, the distributed authentication comes in through drupal.module, which requires code from xmlrpc.inc to create the messages it sends out, as far as I can tell. So, the drupal.module needs it for distributed authentication stuff, not just for pinging servers and so on. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 03 May 2004 23:38:35 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/xmlrpc_2.patch (2.8 KB) "If xmlrpc.php includes xmlrpc.inc, why do we have to include it in blogapi module's functions once more?" As I said, I am not that familiar with that part of Drupal, did not investigate under whch circumstances blogapi functions could be called, and wanted to stay on the safe side. If you are sure that blogapi is always called from xmlrpcs.php, then apply the appended version. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 04 May 2004 05:40:48 +0000 : Dries I'm not 100% sure either, I was merely suggesting an alternative. I think the second patch might work tough, in which case it would be preferred for its simplicity. Not? I'll add "Testing Gerhard's blog API patch to my short term TODO list". Hopefully I get to it tonight after work. Thanks Gerhard. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 12 May 2004 20:12:10 +0000 : Kjartan Good patch, just a few minor comments. - Use single quotes for constant strings. - I noticed some indentations that were off the 2 column, looks like the are in the current code though. - drupal_directory_ping() will only be invoked from xmlrpc.php so there shouldn't be a need to include the file there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 12 May 2004 22:40:06 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/xmlrpc_2_0.patch (2.64 KB) Updated. Don't know to which spaces you are referring. Guess Drupal CVS needs to be code checked again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 04 Aug 2004 01:39:34 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/xmlrpc_3.patch (2.81 KB) Updated again. It appears that parts of the old patch made it into drupal.module, but the include statement was still in common.inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 04 Aug 2004 05:47:45 +0000 : TDobes +1... I tested the patch with blogapi.module and w.bloggar and it works fine, as far as I can tell. I like any patch that includes less code on each page view. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 04 Aug 2004 20:36:43 +0000 : Dries Committed to HEAD. Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:47:36 +0000 : walkah Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/xmlrpc-include.diff (2.38 KB) this patch didn't break blogapi.module, it's true. but it _did_ break drupal.module's distributed authentication feature. the problem is that xmlrpc.inc declares some classes, which will not work if the include statement appears inside a function. see the following for more details: http://us4.php.net/manual/en/language.functions.php (specifically the comment by albaity at php4web dot com) the attached patch restores the drupal.module functionality (as well as reintroduces the include in common.inc). I'm afraid that's just the way it has to be, sorry killes ;) (this patch also fixes a typo in drupal.module where the 'name' array key was not quoted - which may break things under higher error reporting levels). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 13 Aug 2004 19:23:28 +0000 : Anonymous Can't you include common.inc from drupal.module if it needs that file? locale.module also includes its locale.inc without punishing the user who doesn't care about its functionality. Gerhard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 14 Aug 2004 06:29:36 +0000 : Dries Including the XML-RPC library at the top of those files/modules that need it sounds like a fair alternative. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:19:50 +0000 : Steven But that doesn't really help unless you have no XML-RPC modules enabled at all... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 14 Aug 2004 12:58:52 +0000 : JonBob What is more, I don't think it even fixes the bug. The problem is that class declarations in PHP4 are not guaranteed to work correctly when made inside a function. This applies to declarations immediately inside a function definition, or in files included from inside a function definition, or even from files included from files included from function definitions. Note that since module files are included from module_load(), this means class definitions or includes of files that have them cannot safely be in modules. Basically, conditional inclusion of classes is a no-no. To get around this we'd have to rewrite xmlrpc.inc using functions rather than object methods. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:29:40 +0000 : Dries I reverted the patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:39:25 +0000 : walkah ya, but you forgot to put the include_once back in common.inc . :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:59:05 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Can't just somebody step forward and rewrite that class in functions? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:41:24 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org I'd like to keep this open. It is so nicely assigned. ;-> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:35:31 +0000 : Anonymous *grumble* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:05:37 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/xmplrpc.patch (695 bytes) Here is an alternative approach. XML-RPC requests are suppoed to be POST requests, not GET. By jvandyk and myself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:22:18 +0000 : jvandyk This patch affects the inclusion of xmlrpc, which is the xmlrpc client, not xmlrpcs, which is the server and subject to the "all XML-RPC requests are POST requests" rule. Thus, it is ineffective. However, we should consider eliminating the inclusion of xmlrpc.inc at all in common.inc. This would speed up Drupal at the expense of modules that use XML-RPC calls having to include xmlrpc.inc themselves. grepping for xmlrpc_ finds occurrences in drupal.module for cross-drupal-site authentication, foaf.module, livejournalmodule, and waypath.module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:24:23 +0000 : jvandyk And now that I've revisited JonBob's comments on this, I can see why it's currently the way it is and can't be conditionally included. Blech. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 01 Feb 2005 03:51:54 +0000 : tangent It seems that implementing xmlrpc as a (required) module would work around the include issue. I'm working on a xmlrpc.module from scratch, sort of as a Drupal learning exercise, which uses the XML-RPC extension functions instead of the xmlrpc.inc that we're using now and will reduce the code to a few lines instead of the big class that exists now. Before I get too far into it though, I'm interested if anyone may have thoughts about why a module is not the way to go, or if there is some reason we shouldn't be using the XML-RPC functions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:46:41 +0000 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/xmlrpc_cond.patch (4.4 KB) The new library lets this happen. Also, this patch unifies the xmlrpc() and xmlrpc_multicall() calls. Most sites now load 12K less PHP code for almost all page requests. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:51:14 +0000 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/xmlrpc_cond_0.patch (4.58 KB) Dries asked for more clear phpdoc. Robert Douglass and I have enhanced it.

1 0