September 2005 - Development - lists.drupal.org

[drupal-devel] [bug] Author information block seems to be broken
by killes 01 Sep '05

01 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/27948 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/27948 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: profile.module Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: robertDouglass Updated by: killes(a)www.drop.org -Status: patch (code needs review) +Status: patch (ready to be committed) changing status killes(a)www.drop.org Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 01 Aug 2005 12:27:39 +0000 : robertDouglass This needs confirmation but I am unable to get fields to be shown in the author information block. The 'Link to full user profile' will work, but when I deselect 'Link to full user profile' from admin/block/configure/profile/0 and select the other fields instead, the block fails to materialize. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:08:32 +0000 : tostinni Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/profile.module_2.patch (1.09 KB) This little patch does the trick. The bug came from the fact that the query retrieving user profiles, didn't take all public fields. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:57:21 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/profile_1.patch (1.12 KB) I've looked at the patch, changes "in" to "IN" and removed trailign DOS newlines, and can confirm that it works.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Author information block seems to be broken
by killes 01 Sep '05

01 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/27948 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/27948 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: profile.module Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: robertDouglass Updated by: killes(a)www.drop.org Status: patch (code needs review) Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/profile_1.patch (1.12 KB) I've looked at the patch, changes "in" to "IN" and removed trailign DOS newlines, and can confirm that it works. killes(a)www.drop.org Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 01 Aug 2005 12:27:39 +0000 : robertDouglass This needs confirmation but I am unable to get fields to be shown in the author information block. The 'Link to full user profile' will work, but when I deselect 'Link to full user profile' from admin/block/configure/profile/0 and select the other fields instead, the block fails to materialize. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:08:32 +0000 : tostinni Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/profile.module_2.patch (1.09 KB) This little patch does the trick. The bug came from the fact that the query retrieving user profiles, didn't take all public fields.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Advanced search features
by Steven 01 Sep '05

01 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/28159 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/28159 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: search.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Steven Reported by: Steven Updated by: Steven Status: patch (code needs review) Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/search_2.patch (37.05 KB) Here's my promised search patch. It's not 100% commit ready yet, but it's time to sollicit some feedback and get this tested ;). Note that this patch requires a db update, which will wipe the search index. You will then need to call cron.php enough times for the site to be indexed completely again. This could take a while for large databases, but you can control the throttle and see the progress at admin/settings/search. *Features* * AND keyword matching by default ('all of the words'), instead of OR ('any of the words'). * OR support through keyword1 OR keyword2 OR ... * Phrase searching through "quoted strings". * Negative matching through -"minus prefix" -word. * Restrict search by taxonomy or node type(s) using taxonomy:1,2 and type:blog,page. The options are built-into the keyword string through a google like syntax, but there is an expandable "advanced settings" form below the search box which acts as a 'query builder': This example will result in the following search string (of course not a practical example): test type:forum,story category:1 "tinky winky" OR "dipsy" -"uh oh" "teletubby bye bye" On a different note, I removed the wildcard matching. An important reason is that there were significant performance problems with leading wildcards. Such queries were not be able to use any indices, and the resulting full-table scan took a long time. Even Google does have intra-word wildcards, they can only be used as placeholders for entire words in phrases. Trailing wildcards on the other hand are usually used to accomodate grammatical variations on a word. But, wildcards are not really the best tool for this as this puts a burden on the user. If you need this feature, you should instead tie in an algorithm like the Porter Stemmer through the search_preprocess hook. That way you can reduce related words to a single common root (e.g. "walker" "walking" "walked" to "walk"). The search system will then index and search on the reduced words. You will even benefit from a reduced database size because there are less unique words. Because such algorithms are very language specific, I didn't build in any. But it should be trivial to make a Porter Stemmer module for Drupal search, which can be used on english sites. *Database* To implement the above searches, I added a 'search_dataset' table that is independent of the keyword index. Each dataset row contains the entire contents of the indexed item, but filtered, cleaned up and reduced to space-sparated tokens (words, numbers, dates, ...). This table is used to resolve the exact conditions, which means the keyword index is not as essential anymore. Because searches are AND by default, the OR method of search_index acts as an initial filter to eliminate the majority of items immediately. That subset is then further reduced through the search_dataset table. All of this means that the search_index table can now be indexed at a much higher minimum word lenght (e.g. 5), which means a reduced database size. Even with the new dataset table, the net database size shrinks slightly. I also implemented the searching as two selects into temporary tables. This allows me to avoid doing a costly counting query for the pager and a range-limited query for the actual results. I added support for temporary tables to database.(my|pg)sql. The db api itself takes a normal SELECT and a table name, and turns it into an appropriate platform specific temporary table query (CREATE TABLE ... AS, CREATE TABLE ... SELECT). I still need to do detailed benchmarking, but at least for the same queries as before, this patch should be faster. Of course, pre-patch, all searches were OR, not AND, so a direct comparison needs to take this into account (the pre-patch query "drupal theme development" is now "drupal OR theme OR development"). One feature request that I did not do is date based searching (before X/X/X, after X/X/X), mostly because we don't have a good date widget yet. I've been toying with making a simple in-page JS data picker, but it's not done yet and I think the patch is good enough already. Date restrictions can be added on later without any problems. Steven

16 29

[drupal-devel] [bug] Incorrect access checking for username auto completion
by Morbus Iff 01 Sep '05

01 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/24617 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/24617 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node.module Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: drumm Updated by: Morbus Iff -Status: patch (code needs review) +Status: patch (ready to be committed) Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_24617_autocompleteperms.patch (793 bytes) This is the currently running code I have over on NHPR.org. Morbus Iff Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 09 Jun 2005 00:36:55 +0000 : drumm The auto completion for user name on node edit pages checks user_access('administer users') when it should be something more like node_access($node, 'edit'). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:32:58 +0000 : Thox -1 The current "Authored by" field is only for users "administer nodes" permission. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:35:53 +0000 : Thox Whoops, administer nodes != administer users. This makes things different. The true permission should be administer nodes... which almost suggests that the autocomplete function should be part of node.module, not user.module. It depends where else the autocomplete is used in the future. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:57:50 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org I think the function should stay in user.module, but node.module should get a menu callback that utilizes it. This is not a problem as user.module is a required module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:40:57 +0000 : Thox Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/access.patch (1.55 KB) Attached patch moves the menu entry from user.module into node.module and fixes the permission check. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:24:15 +0000 : Dries Say we wanted to make the Author-field on "edit comment" pages editable. I think the permissions would clash, and you'd be able to by-pass permissions if you have access to at least one (because they'd all share the same callback). So, I don't think this solution is sufficiently generic and possibly insecure. Not? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:55:17 +0000 : moshe weitzman I think some are compounding two separate idea. In my mind, the username autocomplete callback needs a very minimal permission like 'view user profile'. And that callback belongs in user.module. The decision about showing the author field and the responsibility for validating its contents belong to node.module and comment.module (in Dries' example). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 07 Jul 2005 08:31:08 +0000 : Thox If the menu item stays in user.module and the permission changed to 'access user profiles', then any users that are 'administer nodes' but not 'access user profiles' would get errors trying to use the autocomplete. The following would work, but I'm not sure if it's the right way to go: <?php 'access' => user_access('access user profiles') || user_access('administer nodes') ?> I think the 'access user profiles' permission is best to use, possibly even going far enough to change the autocomplete field to a plain text field if the user doesn't have the permission. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:21:39 +0000 : Morbus Iff I'm not entirely sure what Dries is talking about in #5. However, I tend to think that "access user profiles" is the right way to go - I've been testing changing $admin_access to $view_access on NHPR.org, and it seems to work fine. By itself, being able to access those URLs isn't any sort of security concern - the places that depend on it for editing (such as 'administer nodes') is controlled by a much stronger permission. Thox's comment in #7 would be a problem, true, but I'm trying to figure out when someone would have 'administer nodes' permissions without having the ability to view a user profile (if they're able to edit the node of someone else, shouldn't they know as much public information about that user as possible?).

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] smaller teaser count
by Bèr Kessels 01 Sep '05

01 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/30185 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/30185 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Bèr Kessels Reported by: Bèr Kessels Updated by: Bèr Kessels Status: patch (code needs review) Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node_teaser_count.patch (2.67 KB) This patch adds smaller character counts for teasers: 25, 50, 75 and 100. 25 is approx one line on a three col layout, or these famous fixed blog things. 50 on wider layouts and 75 is onle line on two col fluid layout. Hundred is about two lines on a lot of layouts. hort teasers often look ery good ni listings. For example http://fixme.remixreading.org/taxonomy/term/31. Note that this is achieved with a hard string trim, we want this to be achieved with the theaser generation code, snice that is much nicer, it looks for spaces etc. Our code does not do that yet, while this patch does. Bèr Kessels

2 1

[drupal-devel] [feature] add inline functionaliy to uploads
by m3avrck 01 Sep '05

01 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/26288 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/26288 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: upload.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: Bèr Kessels Updated by: m3avrck Status: patch (ready to be committed) Ber, check this latest commit: http://drupal.org/node/28483 ... I think your patch no longer applies since this JS based does do inline functionality. m3avrck Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:03:35 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/upload_inline.patch (19.05 KB) One of the most often asked features is proper inlnie handling of files. Look at the amount of solutions, the popularity of image_assist, and the amount of peolpe dowloading image.module! That alone should be enough proof that Drupal lacks proper inline image support. This patch adds that to core. In fact, it does little more then appending a link of img tag to the body or the teaser. Off course that is configurable per file. Next to the [] list checkbox, this patch adds an [] inline checkbox. Simplicity is the foundation of this patch. I want no stles for inline editing, no fancy html wrappers, no tokens, just $node->body or teaser appended with a small html string. Another small themable funtion is introduced, (hey, you cannot expect me to develop something without adding more power for themers, now, can you? ;) ), that allows people to theme the string that is appended to the body or the teaser. Oh, and also note hat the biggest part of this patch is some cleaning I had to do in order to be able to develop properly. I dont like Ifs inside cases in foreaches inside swiches. in other words: nodeapi now calls functions instead of executing code directly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:19:25 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/inline.patch.screenshot.png (26.68 KB) here is how the form now looks ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:19:58 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/inline.patch.screenshot3.png (30.53 KB) and this is an example of inlined images and a .doc file. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:44:00 +0000 : sepeck changing to patch per request from berkes ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:46:13 +0000 : Kobus This gets a +1 from me in principle, however, the [inline:xx] tag with inline.module gives you greater freedom as to where the inline image must be displayed. If you can add this functionality (I haven't checked the code, I don't know if it is in there) it would be a great addition for Core. This same strategy can be used for inline blocks, I am sure. Regards, Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 08:57:50 +0000 : Bèr Kessels there are a couple of reasons why i did not include the [inline] tags. * I aimed for extreme simplicity: a checkbox shows an image inline: its up to the theme where it appears (if one does not like it before/above the body and teaser.). Simplicity was the main goal. * We don't have any tokens in core. And we should not have them. * Tokens are a very bad substitute for a good interface. They give less power then plain HTLM. Are much worst documented then HTML, but in the mean time, they are still as hard to learn as HTML. (Yes, I know people _think_ they are easier, but there _is_ not difference between [ ] and , only that its a different ascii char. So, no. I don't allow any placement of the image. I leave that that for dedicated modules, or the themer to decide. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 09:34:06 +0000 : Kobus So you will provide an API to do this? For example, with perhaps minor modifications, the inline.module will be able to display these files? In that case I am happy. If not, then I can't give my support to this patch (as if that matters...). A themer can't do this task as inline images (and blocks for that matter) is too dynamic for theming; it can be placed anywhere in a node where the user pleases. This means for me that there should be a module for this, such as inline module that allows you to define [inline:xx] tags. If your module emits an array of uploaded files (such as upload.module), inline.module can be, with minor changes, adapted to show these files inline. To show you what I mean with the content is too dynamic for a themer to perform this task, look at this screenshot related to inline blocks (inline images can follow the same pattern): http://drupal.org/files/issues/regions---possibility-3.png ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:26:15 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Kobus, We are dealing with different issues here: You want a method to place images, files or so anywhere in the post. That is fine, but certainly NOT addressed in the patch! I made patch that *only* adds marked files to the body. its really nothing more then <?php $node->body = $filestring . $node->body ?> No APIS, no, dynamic tokens, no filters, nothing. However, what I meant with themers, is that there now is a theme_upload_inline available, so you can theme the abovementioned $filestring. On top of that $node->files[FILEID]->inline is TRUE if a file is flagged for inline. So in node.tpl.php, or wherever you want to theme a node, you can print nice images inline, when that flag is set. And about the comment that a themer cant do this: Simply not true. On most sites images are always placed in the same places. REally, even the sites see which use img_assist or inline, use them to place the images on the exact same places in every node. People /think/ they want the power to place images anywhere, but they hardly ever use that power. Just look at all the big news/publishing sites out there (BBC, CNN, BoigBoing, r even freshmeat) images are all placed acc. to the theme. They are not placed in random places by authors. So if you are one of the few that still want that power, there aer mots of power tools like inline module or img_assist. We should offer a good default, one that is simple. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:41:34 +0000 : Gerhard Killesreiter I fully agree that tags are evil. Kobus: You can always look for tags in $node->body in your theme's node function. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:50:52 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal Ber, the theme-function in your code looks like: <?php +/** + * Theme function for rendering of inline images + * @param $file a file object. + * @param $image a Boolean, indicating whether an img tag (TRUE) or an anchor tag (FALSE) should be used. + * @ingroup themable + */ +function theme_upload_inline($file, $image) { + if ($image) { + return '<img src="'. check_url(($file->fid ? file_create_url($file->filepath) : url(file_create_filename($file->filename, file_create_path())))) .'" alt="'. check_plain($file->filename) .'" class="upload inline">'; + } + else { + return ''. check_plain($file->filename) .' [1]'; + } + +} ?> After looking at your code it's not clear to me when $image is TRUE or FALSE, can you elaborate on me please? [1] http://drupal.org/'. check_url(($file->fid ? file_create_url($file->filepath) : url(file_create_filename($file->filename, file_create_path())))) .'\" class=\"upload inline ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:06:39 +0000 : Bèr Kessels The function calling the theme function should decide whether its an image. IMO that is far too hardcore code for a themer ;) <?php $image = ereg('^(image/)', $file->filemime); ?> inside _upload_inline() does the trick. I did find one issue, though, with svgs, which are image/svg so maybe we should limit this to really only inline jpg, png, and gif, by extension? But I am no fan of determining files by extension, and IMO getimgsize is too heavy; ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:13:52 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal Can't you make use of PHP's <?php image_type_to_mime_type(); ?> or <?php image_type_to_extension(); ?> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:45:43 +0000 : Kobus Well, if not in the patch, I need inline functionality one way or another. inline.module works perfectly with the current upload.module to fulfill my needs, and if there is a way where someone can extend your proposed upload.module, that would get my +1, otherwise I will just remain neutral about this issue. inline.module makes use of $node->files and displays that image. If your patch still uses $node->files, then this is a non-issue. In other words, if I can, with inline.module, or with minor modifications to inline.module still show files inline, I am +1 for this. As for the themability question... I still disagree. You say "Simply not true. On most sites images are always placed in the same places." That is ONLY true because they have NO alternatives. Means the content is in the same places, because they have no other places to put them. I have made tens of static sites where the content does not resemble a fixed pattern or structure. For me, free-flow layout is my expression of my creativity. This is why I still even BOTHER with static sites; when Drupal don't do what I want it to do. If Drupal could do inline display of content properly, I'd never even build another static site. It is a great mistake people make (including myself), and that is they design the site before ANY content is available, and this happens a lot in static sites. But in dynamic sites, you have far less control over this, unless you have a VERY clean structure with limited information that can be added, and only a few people posting content. If you can have your content before you start the design, you will have a better fit. I can't see how you can anticipate every possible posting posted on your site if you have a diversity of users. Especially not if you're using a site such as an designer's showcase site where your creativity is shown by your web sites. Possible, but not easy. If I claim that I have "unique, fresh designs" I can certainly NOT give them a "box-like" site with "left and right side bars only". That's why I need inline content, this includes images AND boxes. Gerhard: Your concern about tags is answered as well above, if I am not mistaken. The patch need not provide the tags, but should provide for someone to develop a module that provide the filters or tags. To summarize: I don't need your patch to do the inline images. I just need your patch to be able to allow someone else to develop a module that can display inline files. Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:56:38 +0000 : Bèr Kessels okay, so for all clarity, let me sumarise: * this patch introduces a chackbox "inline". If checked, the file will show up inline. IT will be appended to the teaser and the body. * this patch does *not* allow one to place images of files in a userdefined place in the body. * this patch does *not* do any resizing nor any thumbnailing. * This patch is meant to be simple, clear and transparant. No tokens, no javascript, no nothing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:21:54 +0000 : Kobus Then I can't see how this patch could replace the existing upload.module, which allows you to use inline.module to place images inline. I therefore withdraw my +1 and go -1 on this (not that it matters, I believe). I think you didn't properly read my previous message. I said I don't need your patch to do all this, but I can't live without the functionality currently provided by the upload.module and inline.module combination. I agree that your patch don't need to have that functionality, but if your patch takes away this functionality, in other words, I can't (by hook or by crook) manage what I need to do, my vote is -1. Regards, Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:58:34 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Kobus, And all the others looking fofr advanced inline systems: please do not -1 this. It will hep inline module a lot too. allthough not yet in this patch, but can you imagine a perission system for inline module, that comes for free? Or a core system, that makes inline module ten times smaller? it is this path! so, please, if it is not /exactly/ what you are looking for, at least look at the advantages for Joe Average, and even for the possibilties for your favorite inline-module. even imag_assist will gain an anomous usability impcact when usiong this module, for it can then finally use the upload module in full scale. Ber ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:59:10 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Sohodjo jim: " I hope it matters. A big -1 on enforcing over-simplification at the expense of important and existing functionality. If automatic, uncontrollable placement of images becomes the standard, it will mean fewer not more image-rich Drupal sites as site owners/developers get complaints about "Why can't I control my images!" I _strongly_ encourage Ber to provide a "have it both ways" solution. Why not have an admin configuration setting for "allow inline tags" with default off. Change it to on and you get an additional upload checkbox for 'inline at tag' to accommodate the current functionality of the inline module while simultaneously allowing for default placement. " NOOO. people; please; look at the PATCH. Again: and hopefully last time: Simplicity. This patch does NOT replace ANYTHING inline module or img_assist wants to do. This patch hands better data to such modules. It hands a variable over to these modules, $node->file[FID]->inline, which tells these sorts of modules if people wnat that file to appear inline. AND it CAN (by default will) render a file in the most simple way inline. So really, if you want to -1 this patch, fine. But do not -1 it, because it does too little IYO. It still allows MUCH more than what you can do no, without that patch! And any solution, for core, that allows advanced handling of inline images will either require an enourmous amount of work, or it will simply no get in. So, unless you come up with a good core-worthy patch, this is still a big leap forward from what we have now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:01:51 +0000 : Bèr Kessels :$ this is an attempt to fix the borken HML in the previous follow up. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:07:34 +0000 : TDobes Please don't combine unrelated changes together in the same patch. Moving stuff in/out of the _nodeapi hook has absolutely nothing to do with the patch and makes it much harder to read through the patch and see what it's actually doing. I'd appreciate it if you could separate the changes made here which are really relevant and move the other changes into another issue. Also: You change form_group_collapsible(t('File attachments') to form_group_collapsible(t('File Attachments'). A quick glance at some other core code seems to indicate that we've standardized on capitalizing only the first word in multi-word group titles. As for the functionality itself, I don't think this belongs in upload.module. It would be useful to have the functionality in core, but as a separate module which can be switched on and off. (upload_inline.module or something like that) If a site were set up using an inlining system from contrib and the functionality you're proposing could not be switched off, it would be extremely confusing to users that there are two different ways of inlining images. A minor comment: I'm not so sure whether the results of this patch, when inlining non-image attachments, will be the one users expect. A non-web-savvy person may expect his/her Word document (for instance) to appear inline with the node when they click "inline" -- just like their images do. I'd suggest that we limit inlining to images only. I'm not as adamant about this as the other issues, so I could be convinced otherwise if others disagree. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:58:19 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Thank you for your thoughts Tdobbes. As for the "moving things in and out of nodeapi" This was necessary, because otherwise the patch would have made the code even more unreadable. I agree with you on this point, but I simply had to clean it up a little, in order to be able to work in it. As it stands now, it is simply not possible to make this a separate module. We cannot hook into the files table. In a next stage, I might work out some hook for that table. But first things first. Can Dries or Steven please comment on his. I want to know If i should bother spending this enormous amount of time on commenting and debating this issue. If the chances are small this is accepted, Ill just drop it This ridiculous long thread reminds me again why I try to avoid making patches for core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 05:49:37 +0000 : Steven Overall I like the concept, but I think it at least needs some default styling to make the image appear okay, like floating it. Right now it appears inline between whatever was there... very ugly. Sure you can say "leave it up to the themer" but if the goal is to provide a simple default, we can't expect people to dive into theming if they are going to use this feature instead of img_assist or whatever. Also, I wonder about the classes "upload" and "image". Is there a reason to use two classes? Isn't "image" a bit too generic? Oh and there is a missing XHTML / for the img tag. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:42:26 +0000 : Bèr Kessels I will fix the broken Xhttml. I chose "image" because it is exactly the same as the .image class used by image.module. But I will see to it, to add more functionality. I agree that it is not up to the themer for some good defaults, thus I will add a line of CSS to drupal.css (*shiver* ;) ) upload, IMO does not communicate well enough what the Image is doing. Not sure yet how I ill fix this, but I will see to it to come up with a better CSS/theme solution. Thanks! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:18:23 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/upload_inline_0.patch (12.24 KB) Suggestions by Steven are now included. I very simple float is added to the inline images in drupal.css. XHTML fixed. And I cleaned up some old crufty comments, as suggested by Dries. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:05:45 +0000 : fax8 What is proposed here is a good idea. But I think that this is done in not good way. I think that upload.module should be only a layer between file system and modules. So modify upload module to add a specific feature like your inline for me is not good. but I like the idea to add checkboxes for enable interaction modules between modules and upload.module. Maybe we could design an of api wich let modules tell upload.module that they can interact with it. I make an example: I'm a developer of video.module. Now to add a video file to video.module one need to put the file into drupal folders using ftp and then insert the path to the file during node creation. One of the features our users are asking a lot is the possibility to directly upload a video file to dupal. So I should write a lot of code, settings, security buggy code.. that for me isn't useful. What about if only calling an upload.module api I should enable a new checkbox on upload form called "use as video file" which let me use the file as a video file on my module??? What do you think about it???? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:00:03 +0000 : Bèr Kessels fax: upload /is/ such a layer. Just look at how image module does it. You need not write any additional 'buggy' code, you can use all teh upload functionality. The upload interface (the table and list), however, is tightly integrated, so that drupal offers an out-of-the-box file system. Nox, my patch simply adds an "out of the box" inline functionality. Small and simple. For any more advanced file features you should use or write a module that, in turn, uses the uplaod.module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:22:40 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal After discussing with Ber, I think this patch has some great potential though the simplicity of it.. For the people who don't completely agree what this patch does: - It adds an extra checkbox for each attachment. If the 'Inline' checkbox is checked, images are displayed inline in your post and other attachments (like .pdf, .ppt, or whatever) were transformed into links. The potential of this patch is in the fact that this makes it much, much easier to have another contrib module which makes it possible to let you choose at the node submission how you would like your node to be displayed, incl. the selected inline attachments to be displayed (using _nodeapi()). So, a big +1 from me on this.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:27:52 +0000 : Kobus > - It adds an extra checkbox for each attachment. If the 'Inline' > checkbox is checked, images are displayed inline in your post and other > attachments (like .pdf, .ppt, or whatever) were transformed into links. Does this mean it is done automatically or do I have control over this? I don't want the images to be inline if I can't control where I put it. Let me just clarify my position on this short-and-sweet-like: If it breaks the existing functionality that upload.module + inline.module provides without opening the door for a replacement, then I am -1, otherwise +1. :-) Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:51:50 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Kobus: Again: it does not break anything! It opens up enormous potential for modules such as inline/module. Because inline module now has access to a variable $node->files[fid]->inline. in other words: modules such as inline.module can now find out what images a user wants to see inline! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:59:53 +0000 : Kobus Ber: Great, then I +1 it. From our previous talks about this, it seemed as if this functionality was being taken away. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:18:21 +0000 : Sohodojo Jim Agreed, +1. The most on-going and especially most recent discussion has clarified that we can have our simple cake and contrib mod cake as well. Does this mean that inline module will work as is, or will a post-patch update be required? --Sohodojo Jim-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:33:47 +0000 : Bèr Kessels inline module will continue working. but in order for it to use this inline variable (and become even better) it needs to be patched. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:12:09 +0000 : moshe weitzman I read through the code and it looks good to me, though it is hard to know whats new given all the code thats moved around. this is definately needed functionality. If you were still up for enhancements, I'd like to see the 'inline' box get checked by default when uploading an image. when the attachment is not an image, the box should be disabled and unchecked. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:32:40 +0000 : Bèr Kessels disabling the box for non-images would break the link function (i.e add a link in the text. But, on second thought: that is fine, since it defeats the list checkbox. I will add that. As well as making it checked by default. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:54:14 +0000 : Junyor @Bèr: Why not simplify this patch to only add the hooks to a contrib module would need to add this functionality? You said that your patch would allow inline.module to work much more easily. But then there is a lot of extra stuff there that inline.module won't need. This functionality can't replace inline.module, so anything that it doesn't use just gets in the way. I'm afraid that users will think this is the best Drupal can provide without looking for a contrib module. I'd prefer we spent our time and effort adding the whole functionality of inline.module or making it easy to add and position inline content in nodes to core rather than adding some functionality to upload.module that doesn't cut it for most users. So, either strip this patch of everything but the functionality that inline.module (and similar modules) can use or allow me to position images in my text through this patch. Otherwise, -1. If this is the first step in a plan to add the functionality I want to core, I'd like to hear your full plan. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:19:37 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/upload_inline_1.patch (19.71 KB) to all: everyone has Big Plans[tm] and even worse: everyone has Bigger Plans for my patch, for inline module. Why not code it? Hooks? fine! module integration, even better. Sorry if I sound a bit grumpy here. But so far I have spent nearly three times as much hours debbating the patch, then I spent creating it. Hooks sound great. but are not the intention of this patch. I want to add a *default* way, that works. But that does not break other modules, nd in fact tries to help them. But I am not inventing some advanced image handling system here. Here is an updated patch with renewed updates.inc (got lost in the previous patch) Moshes suggestion about disabling non-images-checkboxes is also implemented. I like it a lot more now. I did not, however, implement Moshes idea about defaulting to "checked". for a few reasons: * It looks a bit silly if you have more then one image inline, And defaulting all uploads to inline will inline any uploaded image. * When uploading large images they will default to inline, thus pushing your sites layout to oblivian * None of the other options default to TRUE, so for consistancy I prefer to default it to not inline. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:24:26 +0000 : Bèr Kessels oh, bytheway: you can test adn play with this patch here: http://fixme.remixreading.org/?q=add_content note that it is a sandbox, so your account will get lost, and pages might not work :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 29 Jul 2005 03:47:35 +0000 : ejort +1 from me for this feature. It's frustrating that core doesn't include some basic image display functionality, and this will cover a large percentage of users needs without introducing complexity. People wanting arbitrary image placement still have inline.module etc., so it's nothing but an improvement on the current situation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 29 Jul 2005 06:38:46 +0000 : Steven Bèr: one thing is not clear to me... you are right that other modules can access the inline value. But upload.module will always add the image to the body. So, how can other modules use the inline checkbox/option meaningfully? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:33:30 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Steven: what I mean, is that they have access to a variable that tells them a user wants something inline. Nothing more. Its up to these modules to use that meaningfully. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:26:36 +0000 : Bèr Kessels The patch still applies. Dries, please let me know if I must bother trying to get this in before 4.7?

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] add inline functionaliy to uploads
by Bèr Kessels 01 Sep '05

01 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/26288 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/26288 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: upload.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: Bèr Kessels Updated by: Bèr Kessels -Status: patch (code needs review) +Status: patch (ready to be committed) The patch still applies. Dries, please let me know if I must bother trying to get this in before 4.7? Bèr Kessels Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:03:35 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/upload_inline.patch (19.05 KB) One of the most often asked features is proper inlnie handling of files. Look at the amount of solutions, the popularity of image_assist, and the amount of peolpe dowloading image.module! That alone should be enough proof that Drupal lacks proper inline image support. This patch adds that to core. In fact, it does little more then appending a link of img tag to the body or the teaser. Off course that is configurable per file. Next to the [] list checkbox, this patch adds an [] inline checkbox. Simplicity is the foundation of this patch. I want no stles for inline editing, no fancy html wrappers, no tokens, just $node->body or teaser appended with a small html string. Another small themable funtion is introduced, (hey, you cannot expect me to develop something without adding more power for themers, now, can you? ;) ), that allows people to theme the string that is appended to the body or the teaser. Oh, and also note hat the biggest part of this patch is some cleaning I had to do in order to be able to develop properly. I dont like Ifs inside cases in foreaches inside swiches. in other words: nodeapi now calls functions instead of executing code directly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:19:25 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/inline.patch.screenshot.png (26.68 KB) here is how the form now looks ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:19:58 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/inline.patch.screenshot3.png (30.53 KB) and this is an example of inlined images and a .doc file. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:44:00 +0000 : sepeck changing to patch per request from berkes ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:46:13 +0000 : Kobus This gets a +1 from me in principle, however, the [inline:xx] tag with inline.module gives you greater freedom as to where the inline image must be displayed. If you can add this functionality (I haven't checked the code, I don't know if it is in there) it would be a great addition for Core. This same strategy can be used for inline blocks, I am sure. Regards, Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 08:57:50 +0000 : Bèr Kessels there are a couple of reasons why i did not include the [inline] tags. * I aimed for extreme simplicity: a checkbox shows an image inline: its up to the theme where it appears (if one does not like it before/above the body and teaser.). Simplicity was the main goal. * We don't have any tokens in core. And we should not have them. * Tokens are a very bad substitute for a good interface. They give less power then plain HTLM. Are much worst documented then HTML, but in the mean time, they are still as hard to learn as HTML. (Yes, I know people _think_ they are easier, but there _is_ not difference between [ ] and , only that its a different ascii char. So, no. I don't allow any placement of the image. I leave that that for dedicated modules, or the themer to decide. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 09:34:06 +0000 : Kobus So you will provide an API to do this? For example, with perhaps minor modifications, the inline.module will be able to display these files? In that case I am happy. If not, then I can't give my support to this patch (as if that matters...). A themer can't do this task as inline images (and blocks for that matter) is too dynamic for theming; it can be placed anywhere in a node where the user pleases. This means for me that there should be a module for this, such as inline module that allows you to define [inline:xx] tags. If your module emits an array of uploaded files (such as upload.module), inline.module can be, with minor changes, adapted to show these files inline. To show you what I mean with the content is too dynamic for a themer to perform this task, look at this screenshot related to inline blocks (inline images can follow the same pattern): http://drupal.org/files/issues/regions---possibility-3.png ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:26:15 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Kobus, We are dealing with different issues here: You want a method to place images, files or so anywhere in the post. That is fine, but certainly NOT addressed in the patch! I made patch that *only* adds marked files to the body. its really nothing more then <?php $node->body = $filestring . $node->body ?> No APIS, no, dynamic tokens, no filters, nothing. However, what I meant with themers, is that there now is a theme_upload_inline available, so you can theme the abovementioned $filestring. On top of that $node->files[FILEID]->inline is TRUE if a file is flagged for inline. So in node.tpl.php, or wherever you want to theme a node, you can print nice images inline, when that flag is set. And about the comment that a themer cant do this: Simply not true. On most sites images are always placed in the same places. REally, even the sites see which use img_assist or inline, use them to place the images on the exact same places in every node. People /think/ they want the power to place images anywhere, but they hardly ever use that power. Just look at all the big news/publishing sites out there (BBC, CNN, BoigBoing, r even freshmeat) images are all placed acc. to the theme. They are not placed in random places by authors. So if you are one of the few that still want that power, there aer mots of power tools like inline module or img_assist. We should offer a good default, one that is simple. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:41:34 +0000 : Gerhard Killesreiter I fully agree that tags are evil. Kobus: You can always look for tags in $node->body in your theme's node function. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:50:52 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal Ber, the theme-function in your code looks like: <?php +/** + * Theme function for rendering of inline images + * @param $file a file object. + * @param $image a Boolean, indicating whether an img tag (TRUE) or an anchor tag (FALSE) should be used. + * @ingroup themable + */ +function theme_upload_inline($file, $image) { + if ($image) { + return '<img src="'. check_url(($file->fid ? file_create_url($file->filepath) : url(file_create_filename($file->filename, file_create_path())))) .'" alt="'. check_plain($file->filename) .'" class="upload inline">'; + } + else { + return ''. check_plain($file->filename) .' [1]'; + } + +} ?> After looking at your code it's not clear to me when $image is TRUE or FALSE, can you elaborate on me please? [1] http://drupal.org/'. check_url(($file->fid ? file_create_url($file->filepath) : url(file_create_filename($file->filename, file_create_path())))) .'\" class=\"upload inline ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:06:39 +0000 : Bèr Kessels The function calling the theme function should decide whether its an image. IMO that is far too hardcore code for a themer ;) <?php $image = ereg('^(image/)', $file->filemime); ?> inside _upload_inline() does the trick. I did find one issue, though, with svgs, which are image/svg so maybe we should limit this to really only inline jpg, png, and gif, by extension? But I am no fan of determining files by extension, and IMO getimgsize is too heavy; ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:13:52 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal Can't you make use of PHP's <?php image_type_to_mime_type(); ?> or <?php image_type_to_extension(); ?> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:45:43 +0000 : Kobus Well, if not in the patch, I need inline functionality one way or another. inline.module works perfectly with the current upload.module to fulfill my needs, and if there is a way where someone can extend your proposed upload.module, that would get my +1, otherwise I will just remain neutral about this issue. inline.module makes use of $node->files and displays that image. If your patch still uses $node->files, then this is a non-issue. In other words, if I can, with inline.module, or with minor modifications to inline.module still show files inline, I am +1 for this. As for the themability question... I still disagree. You say "Simply not true. On most sites images are always placed in the same places." That is ONLY true because they have NO alternatives. Means the content is in the same places, because they have no other places to put them. I have made tens of static sites where the content does not resemble a fixed pattern or structure. For me, free-flow layout is my expression of my creativity. This is why I still even BOTHER with static sites; when Drupal don't do what I want it to do. If Drupal could do inline display of content properly, I'd never even build another static site. It is a great mistake people make (including myself), and that is they design the site before ANY content is available, and this happens a lot in static sites. But in dynamic sites, you have far less control over this, unless you have a VERY clean structure with limited information that can be added, and only a few people posting content. If you can have your content before you start the design, you will have a better fit. I can't see how you can anticipate every possible posting posted on your site if you have a diversity of users. Especially not if you're using a site such as an designer's showcase site where your creativity is shown by your web sites. Possible, but not easy. If I claim that I have "unique, fresh designs" I can certainly NOT give them a "box-like" site with "left and right side bars only". That's why I need inline content, this includes images AND boxes. Gerhard: Your concern about tags is answered as well above, if I am not mistaken. The patch need not provide the tags, but should provide for someone to develop a module that provide the filters or tags. To summarize: I don't need your patch to do the inline images. I just need your patch to be able to allow someone else to develop a module that can display inline files. Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:56:38 +0000 : Bèr Kessels okay, so for all clarity, let me sumarise: * this patch introduces a chackbox "inline". If checked, the file will show up inline. IT will be appended to the teaser and the body. * this patch does *not* allow one to place images of files in a userdefined place in the body. * this patch does *not* do any resizing nor any thumbnailing. * This patch is meant to be simple, clear and transparant. No tokens, no javascript, no nothing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:21:54 +0000 : Kobus Then I can't see how this patch could replace the existing upload.module, which allows you to use inline.module to place images inline. I therefore withdraw my +1 and go -1 on this (not that it matters, I believe). I think you didn't properly read my previous message. I said I don't need your patch to do all this, but I can't live without the functionality currently provided by the upload.module and inline.module combination. I agree that your patch don't need to have that functionality, but if your patch takes away this functionality, in other words, I can't (by hook or by crook) manage what I need to do, my vote is -1. Regards, Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:58:34 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Kobus, And all the others looking fofr advanced inline systems: please do not -1 this. It will hep inline module a lot too. allthough not yet in this patch, but can you imagine a perission system for inline module, that comes for free? Or a core system, that makes inline module ten times smaller? it is this path! so, please, if it is not /exactly/ what you are looking for, at least look at the advantages for Joe Average, and even for the possibilties for your favorite inline-module. even imag_assist will gain an anomous usability impcact when usiong this module, for it can then finally use the upload module in full scale. Ber ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:59:10 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Sohodjo jim: " I hope it matters. A big -1 on enforcing over-simplification at the expense of important and existing functionality. If automatic, uncontrollable placement of images becomes the standard, it will mean fewer not more image-rich Drupal sites as site owners/developers get complaints about "Why can't I control my images!" I _strongly_ encourage Ber to provide a "have it both ways" solution. Why not have an admin configuration setting for "allow inline tags" with default off. Change it to on and you get an additional upload checkbox for 'inline at tag' to accommodate the current functionality of the inline module while simultaneously allowing for default placement. " NOOO. people; please; look at the PATCH. Again: and hopefully last time: Simplicity. This patch does NOT replace ANYTHING inline module or img_assist wants to do. This patch hands better data to such modules. It hands a variable over to these modules, $node->file[FID]->inline, which tells these sorts of modules if people wnat that file to appear inline. AND it CAN (by default will) render a file in the most simple way inline. So really, if you want to -1 this patch, fine. But do not -1 it, because it does too little IYO. It still allows MUCH more than what you can do no, without that patch! And any solution, for core, that allows advanced handling of inline images will either require an enourmous amount of work, or it will simply no get in. So, unless you come up with a good core-worthy patch, this is still a big leap forward from what we have now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:01:51 +0000 : Bèr Kessels :$ this is an attempt to fix the borken HML in the previous follow up. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:07:34 +0000 : TDobes Please don't combine unrelated changes together in the same patch. Moving stuff in/out of the _nodeapi hook has absolutely nothing to do with the patch and makes it much harder to read through the patch and see what it's actually doing. I'd appreciate it if you could separate the changes made here which are really relevant and move the other changes into another issue. Also: You change form_group_collapsible(t('File attachments') to form_group_collapsible(t('File Attachments'). A quick glance at some other core code seems to indicate that we've standardized on capitalizing only the first word in multi-word group titles. As for the functionality itself, I don't think this belongs in upload.module. It would be useful to have the functionality in core, but as a separate module which can be switched on and off. (upload_inline.module or something like that) If a site were set up using an inlining system from contrib and the functionality you're proposing could not be switched off, it would be extremely confusing to users that there are two different ways of inlining images. A minor comment: I'm not so sure whether the results of this patch, when inlining non-image attachments, will be the one users expect. A non-web-savvy person may expect his/her Word document (for instance) to appear inline with the node when they click "inline" -- just like their images do. I'd suggest that we limit inlining to images only. I'm not as adamant about this as the other issues, so I could be convinced otherwise if others disagree. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:58:19 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Thank you for your thoughts Tdobbes. As for the "moving things in and out of nodeapi" This was necessary, because otherwise the patch would have made the code even more unreadable. I agree with you on this point, but I simply had to clean it up a little, in order to be able to work in it. As it stands now, it is simply not possible to make this a separate module. We cannot hook into the files table. In a next stage, I might work out some hook for that table. But first things first. Can Dries or Steven please comment on his. I want to know If i should bother spending this enormous amount of time on commenting and debating this issue. If the chances are small this is accepted, Ill just drop it This ridiculous long thread reminds me again why I try to avoid making patches for core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 05:49:37 +0000 : Steven Overall I like the concept, but I think it at least needs some default styling to make the image appear okay, like floating it. Right now it appears inline between whatever was there... very ugly. Sure you can say "leave it up to the themer" but if the goal is to provide a simple default, we can't expect people to dive into theming if they are going to use this feature instead of img_assist or whatever. Also, I wonder about the classes "upload" and "image". Is there a reason to use two classes? Isn't "image" a bit too generic? Oh and there is a missing XHTML / for the img tag. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:42:26 +0000 : Bèr Kessels I will fix the broken Xhttml. I chose "image" because it is exactly the same as the .image class used by image.module. But I will see to it, to add more functionality. I agree that it is not up to the themer for some good defaults, thus I will add a line of CSS to drupal.css (*shiver* ;) ) upload, IMO does not communicate well enough what the Image is doing. Not sure yet how I ill fix this, but I will see to it to come up with a better CSS/theme solution. Thanks! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:18:23 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/upload_inline_0.patch (12.24 KB) Suggestions by Steven are now included. I very simple float is added to the inline images in drupal.css. XHTML fixed. And I cleaned up some old crufty comments, as suggested by Dries. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:05:45 +0000 : fax8 What is proposed here is a good idea. But I think that this is done in not good way. I think that upload.module should be only a layer between file system and modules. So modify upload module to add a specific feature like your inline for me is not good. but I like the idea to add checkboxes for enable interaction modules between modules and upload.module. Maybe we could design an of api wich let modules tell upload.module that they can interact with it. I make an example: I'm a developer of video.module. Now to add a video file to video.module one need to put the file into drupal folders using ftp and then insert the path to the file during node creation. One of the features our users are asking a lot is the possibility to directly upload a video file to dupal. So I should write a lot of code, settings, security buggy code.. that for me isn't useful. What about if only calling an upload.module api I should enable a new checkbox on upload form called "use as video file" which let me use the file as a video file on my module??? What do you think about it???? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:00:03 +0000 : Bèr Kessels fax: upload /is/ such a layer. Just look at how image module does it. You need not write any additional 'buggy' code, you can use all teh upload functionality. The upload interface (the table and list), however, is tightly integrated, so that drupal offers an out-of-the-box file system. Nox, my patch simply adds an "out of the box" inline functionality. Small and simple. For any more advanced file features you should use or write a module that, in turn, uses the uplaod.module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:22:40 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal After discussing with Ber, I think this patch has some great potential though the simplicity of it.. For the people who don't completely agree what this patch does: - It adds an extra checkbox for each attachment. If the 'Inline' checkbox is checked, images are displayed inline in your post and other attachments (like .pdf, .ppt, or whatever) were transformed into links. The potential of this patch is in the fact that this makes it much, much easier to have another contrib module which makes it possible to let you choose at the node submission how you would like your node to be displayed, incl. the selected inline attachments to be displayed (using _nodeapi()). So, a big +1 from me on this.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:27:52 +0000 : Kobus > - It adds an extra checkbox for each attachment. If the 'Inline' > checkbox is checked, images are displayed inline in your post and other > attachments (like .pdf, .ppt, or whatever) were transformed into links. Does this mean it is done automatically or do I have control over this? I don't want the images to be inline if I can't control where I put it. Let me just clarify my position on this short-and-sweet-like: If it breaks the existing functionality that upload.module + inline.module provides without opening the door for a replacement, then I am -1, otherwise +1. :-) Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:51:50 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Kobus: Again: it does not break anything! It opens up enormous potential for modules such as inline/module. Because inline module now has access to a variable $node->files[fid]->inline. in other words: modules such as inline.module can now find out what images a user wants to see inline! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:59:53 +0000 : Kobus Ber: Great, then I +1 it. From our previous talks about this, it seemed as if this functionality was being taken away. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:18:21 +0000 : Sohodojo Jim Agreed, +1. The most on-going and especially most recent discussion has clarified that we can have our simple cake and contrib mod cake as well. Does this mean that inline module will work as is, or will a post-patch update be required? --Sohodojo Jim-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:33:47 +0000 : Bèr Kessels inline module will continue working. but in order for it to use this inline variable (and become even better) it needs to be patched. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:12:09 +0000 : moshe weitzman I read through the code and it looks good to me, though it is hard to know whats new given all the code thats moved around. this is definately needed functionality. If you were still up for enhancements, I'd like to see the 'inline' box get checked by default when uploading an image. when the attachment is not an image, the box should be disabled and unchecked. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:32:40 +0000 : Bèr Kessels disabling the box for non-images would break the link function (i.e add a link in the text. But, on second thought: that is fine, since it defeats the list checkbox. I will add that. As well as making it checked by default. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:54:14 +0000 : Junyor @Bèr: Why not simplify this patch to only add the hooks to a contrib module would need to add this functionality? You said that your patch would allow inline.module to work much more easily. But then there is a lot of extra stuff there that inline.module won't need. This functionality can't replace inline.module, so anything that it doesn't use just gets in the way. I'm afraid that users will think this is the best Drupal can provide without looking for a contrib module. I'd prefer we spent our time and effort adding the whole functionality of inline.module or making it easy to add and position inline content in nodes to core rather than adding some functionality to upload.module that doesn't cut it for most users. So, either strip this patch of everything but the functionality that inline.module (and similar modules) can use or allow me to position images in my text through this patch. Otherwise, -1. If this is the first step in a plan to add the functionality I want to core, I'd like to hear your full plan. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:19:37 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/upload_inline_1.patch (19.71 KB) to all: everyone has Big Plans[tm] and even worse: everyone has Bigger Plans for my patch, for inline module. Why not code it? Hooks? fine! module integration, even better. Sorry if I sound a bit grumpy here. But so far I have spent nearly three times as much hours debbating the patch, then I spent creating it. Hooks sound great. but are not the intention of this patch. I want to add a *default* way, that works. But that does not break other modules, nd in fact tries to help them. But I am not inventing some advanced image handling system here. Here is an updated patch with renewed updates.inc (got lost in the previous patch) Moshes suggestion about disabling non-images-checkboxes is also implemented. I like it a lot more now. I did not, however, implement Moshes idea about defaulting to "checked". for a few reasons: * It looks a bit silly if you have more then one image inline, And defaulting all uploads to inline will inline any uploaded image. * When uploading large images they will default to inline, thus pushing your sites layout to oblivian * None of the other options default to TRUE, so for consistancy I prefer to default it to not inline. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:24:26 +0000 : Bèr Kessels oh, bytheway: you can test adn play with this patch here: http://fixme.remixreading.org/?q=add_content note that it is a sandbox, so your account will get lost, and pages might not work :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 29 Jul 2005 03:47:35 +0000 : ejort +1 from me for this feature. It's frustrating that core doesn't include some basic image display functionality, and this will cover a large percentage of users needs without introducing complexity. People wanting arbitrary image placement still have inline.module etc., so it's nothing but an improvement on the current situation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 29 Jul 2005 06:38:46 +0000 : Steven Bèr: one thing is not clear to me... you are right that other modules can access the inline value. But upload.module will always add the image to the body. So, how can other modules use the inline checkbox/option meaningfully? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:33:30 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Steven: what I mean, is that they have access to a variable that tells them a user wants something inline. Nothing more. Its up to these modules to use that meaningfully.

1 0

[drupal-devel] Drupal 4.7 code freeze postponed
by Dries Buytaert 01 Sep '05

01 Sep '05

See http://drupal.org/node/30176 for details. Let's centralize the discussion on http://drupal.org/ itself. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Deleting Images in node/edit does not delete
by Hosting Geek 01 Sep '05

01 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/24528 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/24528 Project: Drupal Version: 4.6.0 Component: upload.module Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: jamida Updated by: Hosting Geek Status: patch (code needs review) +1 Hosting Geek Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:38:23 +0000 : jamida Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/ImageScreenshot.jpg (66.6 KB) After I've uploaded an image I usually see 3 images in the node/##/edit URL In the attachments section there are: 1) THUMBNAIL eg image.thumbnail.jpg 2) PREVIEW eg image.preview.jpg 3) ORIGINAL eg image.jpg This section gives me the option to either list or delete these files. When I select the "delete" checkbox and then hit "submit" at the bottom of the page, the chosen file disappears from the "Attachments" box, but it does NOT get deleted from the directory. It would be nice to either have the DELETE checkbox work correctly or to remove the DELETE option (since it appears to be broken). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:26:55 +0000 : dtan Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/upload.module.delete.patch (979 bytes) Actually a patch to the upload.module. The filepath was not being recognized. This was also the case when the entire node was being deleted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 30 Jun 2005 03:38:57 +0000 : dtan Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/forms_noreq_validate_0.patch (1.03 KB) html in patch again :( ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 30 Jun 2005 03:51:23 +0000 : dtan Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/upload_module_delete.patch (979 bytes) what the? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:03:58 +0000 : mfb +1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 02 Jul 2005 03:20:56 +0000 : drumm Setting the correct project/component.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Paging support for long page nodes
by scutari 01 Sep '05

01 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/30089 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/30089 Project: Drupal Version: 4.6.3 Component: page.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: scutari Updated by: scutari Status: patch (code needs review) Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/submitted_page_0.patch (1.84 KB) This is a *beta* support for paging (splitting long page nodes into smaller chunks) using a  tag. Even in this beta stage it works flawlessly in my drupal 4.6.3. Preview of splitted nodes is broken without some other hacks; I'll provide them as patches if this feature request is deemed interesting. scutari

10 18