- Development - lists.drupal.org

[drupal-devel] [feature] Replace core archive.module w/ codemonkeyx archive.module
by Morbus Iff 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/29676 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/29676 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: archive.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Morbus Iff Reported by: Morbus Iff Updated by: Morbus Iff Status: patch (ready to be committed) Norrin - this Issue is for the development version of Drupal. It will not work with 4.6.3. Morbus Iff Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:08:49 +0000 : Morbus Iff Over at http://drupal.org/node/8287, Berkes mentions that the core archive.module was considered being removed, per a discussion at the Drupal Sprint. Kjartan also mentions he would "love to have the archive module improved in general." In chatting with chx about this, he mentioned codemonkeyx's rewrite sitting in contrib/modules/archive/. I'll be doing some work with the archive.module over the next few days, and will be basing my changes around codemonkeyx's version, and making it compatible with HEAD. This general Issue is to move codemonkeyx's version into HEAD as a replacement to the existing archive.module. An unknown version of his replacement can be seen at http://www.codemonkeyx.net/archive. I'll be running a live HEAD version soon as well. These patches were made during the customization of Drupal by http://www.NHPR.org. In loving support of open source software, http://www.NHPR.org will continue to contribute patches they feel the community will benefit from. Questions about this patch should be directed to morbus(a)disobey.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:45:59 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues_2 (9.56 KB) As an example of a very early revision, see the attached, with the following changes from the current contrib CVS: * removed the year offset from theme_archive_navigation_years, which controlled how many year links to show at once in the top nav. For those with sites with more than five years, they'll WANT people to notice that they have five years, not to have to click on the earliest date and then have their expectations changed. * made the "created > $date" in archive_buildQuery "created >= $date" instead, to allow posts that were created at exactly midnight that day (like me, by design). * since there's no block, I made the menu item visible upon first load. this menu item is given "access content" permissions. More to come, including doxygen and gmt considerations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:47:41 +0000 : Morbus Iff Might as well start getting a review of it so I can fix 'em as they come in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:56:49 +0000 : Tobias Maier cant you provide a patch file? thanks for your work ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:04:01 +0000 : Morbus Iff The codemonkeyx version is a complete rewrite of the core archive.module. If I were to create a patch file against core, every line would be deleted, and every line would be new. Once I finish my revisions to codemonkey's version, I'll post the final version here, as well as a patch against his current CVS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:09:13 +0000 : Tobias Maier ok, thanks again :D ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:41:43 +0000 : Junyor +1 for this change. The archive.module in core is dead. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:14:30 +0000 : adrian What is the progress on this morbus ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:29:13 +0000 : Morbus Iff Adrian - I'll be attaching a new version either later today or tomorrow, with a CHANGELOG. I'll also be running a live version of it over on NHPR.org for people to play with. The three major things I'm worried about right now are a) doxygen, b) variable/function naming, c) GMT considerations. After those, I'll be exploring a patch for my own needs: the ability to get archives for particular term. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:53:34 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive.module (9.93 KB) Here's the latest, with the following changelog: * reordered some routines to be a little more workflowish. * renamed archive_buildQuery to archive_build_query. * general whitespace and formatting cleanup. * HEADish update: returning $output, not page templating it. * removed the reference of &$ad in archive_build_query. * test for the existence of arg(#)'s before validating them. * archive_validSomething changed to archive_valid_something. * removed unused vars: cur_date, cur_date_end. * renamed archive_buildURL to archive_build_url. * removed the HTML whitespace from the theming. * twiddled a lot of quotes and apostraphes. * removed 'future' CSS class. ill-defined. * reordered/renamed the CSS classes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:54:08 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_29676_archive_css.patch (1.56 KB) And the drupal.css patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:56:29 +0000 : Morbus Iff This version of the module is currently running live at http://www.nhpr.org/archive/. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:59:57 +0000 : Tobias Maier if i click for example on 2003 it would be good if this would go to january or december and marks them that this one will be shown now as you can see it if you click on january 2003. it has to select * on the first: the first month of writing * on the last: the last month of writing * on every else: january I hope you can understand what I mean... greets tobias ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:17:40 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_0.module (11.28 KB) Alright. I've attached another new version that adds a new feature that wasn't part of the original codemonkeyx CVS, but was chatted about on the devel list back in April. If this particular feature has bad code or needs heavy refactoring, certainly consider ONLY the version in comment #9 (and the matching drupal.css patch in #10). This new version supports dated archives based on taxonomy tids. It was a quick addition which NHPR.org needed (for the date nav; the normal tid archive pager wasn't strong enough for our needs). Since it was a quick addition, it supports only ONE tid at a time - the 'and/or' syntax for the taxonomy.module was not brought over. If that syntax was desired, it'd make more sense to create some sort of API for archive.module so that other nodes can take advantage of the dated nav in their normal pages (like node types, users, forums, etc.) The added code supports term matches at any granularity: # all node types that match tid 15000 ('The Front Porch') http://www.nhpr.org/archive/term/15000 # all 2005 node types that match tid 20 ('Health') http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2005/term/20 # all March, 2003 node types that match tid 9 ('Education') http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2003/3/term/9 # all July 11, 2003 node types that match tid 49 ('Economy') http://morbus.totalnetnh.net/nhpr/archive/2002/7/11/term/49 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:27:26 +0000 : Tobias Maier what does this mean? "Story Archives of 'archives' " on http://www.nhpr.org/archive/term/15000 should this maybe named? "Archive of 'The Front Porch'" if I go to http://www.nhpr.org/archive/term/20 I can only read "archives"... why is there a difference? - I never tested this module on my test site, because I'm not at home - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:29:34 +0000 : Morbus Iff Tobias: that wouldn't be possible, at least not accurately. The new archive.module supports browsing by year, month, and day, as you know. archive/2005 loads up all the data from a particular year and starts creating a pager out of it. Consider if you have 3 posts in December, and 15 posts in November. It wouldn't be "right" to highlight December because the pager display for the entire year would also include some of November's entries (since 3 is less than the pager increment). Likewise, if we ONLY showed the items from December, then we wouldn't have a "pager by year" feature, only a "pager by month (defaulting to December when none is selected)" feature. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:30:41 +0000 : Morbus Iff Tobias: regarding #14, that's an artifact of the templates that I'm using for NHPR, and has nothing to do with archive.module itself (in fact, once the anonymous cache expires, you'll see that little oopsie go away). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:31:47 +0000 : Tobias Maier I can see your right :) I hope it comes in HEAD before tomorrow :D ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:20:12 +0000 : dtan I apologize if this is already a known issue. http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2005/9 does not create a link for september 1st, even though there are 2 nodes listed (http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2005/9/1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:11:21 +0000 : Morbus Iff dtan: I'm pretty sure I know what this is - I'll address it either later today or tomorrow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:49:58 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_1.module (11.53 KB) Alright, I've attached a new archive.module - this is the version WITH term filtering enabled. I can make one without terms if necessary - otherwise, I'll just work from this one for now. This version fixes the bug that dtan saw, as a well as a bunch of other off-by-one errors. Of primary importance, however, is that all mktime's that mattered have been switched to gmmktime, which was one of the oft-reported Issues with the old archive.module. I want to eyeball them all again and make sure they're right though. The URLs from #13 are still operational and the CSS from #10 is still required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:02:06 +0000 : Morbus Iff In testing with a few people in #drupal, we've discovered a much bigger problem, which affects this rewritten module as well as the current core archive.module. In a nutshell, the node.created time is stored with time(). PHP's time() bases itself on the server time, NOT on GMT. Thus, for archive.module to work correctly, it must ALWAYS use mktime (relative to server time) and never consider the $user->timezone (relative to GMT). For archive.module, this would cause dates to always be considered via server time, which isn't good, but is better than the craziness going on now. Alternatively, we could try to convert server time to GMT first, and then work with that. The proper solution is to fix node.module to use gmmktime without any arguments for node.created, then have an update path that modifies all node .created and .modified values to GMT, not server time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 05:53:51 +0000 : Junyor Since that is also a problem with the old archive.module, I don't see why it should stop this from getting into core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:37:28 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal "Since that is also a problem with the old archive.module, I don't see why it should stop this from getting into core. " Well, I think it's better to only accept the best code rather than accepting bugs getting in core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:05:51 +0000 : Kobus I am with Junyor on this. If this can be fixed, great, but if not, it's not a train smash, as the old one exhibits the same problem. I say add the new archive module, if there are no other ciritical bugs with it. It is much more robust and usable than the old one. We desperately need a new archive module. I couldn't find any other bugs while testing with the links Morbus posted. I don't have a HEAD installation anywhere, so can't test it locally at this moment. Regards, Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:07:49 +0000 : Kobus BTW, code freeze means no new code added, right? Can't this module put in Core as is for the code freeze and the bug sorted out before the official release? Or is that just mean of me to suggest that? Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:13:09 +0000 : Junyor Stefan: The bug is already in core, since node.module is in core. Archive.module (old and new!) just shows that bug. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:20:35 +0000 : Tobias Maier I want to have it in core for 4.7, too!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:25:24 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal Junyor: I know that.. Though I think it's not good to accept code which we are aware of that it has bugs in it.. Offcourse this is very double, because drupal contains (probably) a lot of bugs, only they weren't spotted yet.. But, accepting code which has bugs in unacceptable imo.. For example, the node revisions patch had almost 40 reviews/rewritings from Gerhard and several others before it was accepted to be in core.. If we do not allow bugs to go into core, we don't have to bughunt and fix later which is a good thing.. So, imo we should first sort out the problem, then discuss what the best way is to fix the problem, and after that Squeeze that moron! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:11:06 +0000 : adrian I vote we include this module, and open up a new issue for the bug. It's not archive's fault that this occurs, it is just showing the data it has access to. The bug already exists in core too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:50:59 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_2.module (10.63 KB) Attached is a new, and most likely final, version of the archive.module. I've removed all user->timezone references - all date determinations are based on server time, which is also the time used in the "created" column of the node table. This is "more accurate" than what the core archive.module currently does (which'll always be wrong because it's treating server time as GMT, which isn't always the case). When node.module does start saving times as GMT properly, archive.module will have be to be tweaked with timezones and blah blah blah. I did fiddle around with determining the server offset in an attempt to get to a GMT base, but I didn't have much luck with that. The NHPR.org URLs above are still valid for testing. I need testers and reviewers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:55:16 +0000 : m3avrck I get these two PHP errors when I have *no* content in my Drupal install (just did a clean install to test it): warning: mktime() [<a href='function.mktime'>function.mktime</a>]: Windows does not support negative values for this function in websites\drupal_cvs\drupal\modules\archive.module on line 274. warning: date() [<a href='function.date'>function.date</a>]: Windows does not support dates prior to midnight (00:00:00), January 1, 1970 in websites\drupal_cvs\drupal\modules\archive.module on line 274. Once I add content, these go away. Need some better checks to make sure if there is *no* content you don't get weird errors and what not :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:55:45 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_29676_archive_css_0.patch (1.56 KB) Updated drupal.css patch for HEAD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:26:01 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_3.module (10.75 KB) Attached is the complete module, fixed for m3avrck's #31. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:30:36 +0000 : m3avrck Reviewed patch and further test, running great over here! Definetly +1 for this one! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:03:36 +0000 : Morbus Iff Note: The NHPR folks preferred their archives to be sorted from earliest to latest (SQL ASC vs. DESC) for month/day listings, so no longer use the NHPR.org URLs above as representative of the module itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:26:37 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/drupal.css (10.35 KB) CVS updated for HEAD again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:27:00 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_29676_archive_css_1.patch (1.56 KB) GRRR. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:18:48 +0000 : m3avrck Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_0.patch (20.72 KB) Rerolled patch against head. Also created one patch that fixes both archive.module and drupal.css so it's a clean and simple process now :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:23:55 +0000 : m3avrck Just retested with the latest patch I made, applies cleanly against HEAD and *everything* works great and looks great too. No errors of any kind, even works on PHP 5.0.5 with no call by reference errors, :D Let's get this baby in! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:26:06 +0000 : Souvent22 +1. I like the new patch, makes things easier to patch. Very slick. I like the break down of years, to months, to days. Very nice. Ready to go I say. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:55:56 +0000 : m3avrck Bump to the top, freeze coming soon!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:05:21 +0000 : Cvbge So, pgsql does not have FROM_UNIXTIME nor MONTH functions... I'd prefer, if it is possibile, to change the query to not use this mysql-specific functions, then writing pgsql specific equivalents... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:39:20 +0000 : Dries It might be me, but visually, I like the little calendar block better. Though, this new (slightly ugly) widget is easier to navigate. I'd like to postpone this patch until after 4.7. While nice, I'm not convinced this is the right approach. Like, adding the term-magic to the archive module is more of a hack than anything else. What's next, adding a uid-check so you can filter by user ID? Or a type check so you can filter by node type? Ultimately this should be merged into the tracker module, or better yet, into a generic "query string to node query"-mechanism. (I've outlined this elsewhere in the issues.) There is also a bunch of very minor code issues that need to be looked at. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:06:57 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_4.module (11.18 KB) I've attached an updated version, which includes gmmktime + user->timezones, as well as changing all date()'s to format_date()'s. As for nodetypes/users, actually, yeah, NHPR.org is interested in those filter functionalities too (and actually wanted them a few weeks ago). Haven't yet addressed the PSQL stuff from Cvbge. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:09:46 +0000 : Morbus Iff I'm not entirely convinced that this should be part of tracker.module - the tracker module is to "track changes" or to "track updates". That's an entire different problem than archived data, which probably hasn't been changed for months or even years. I'd hate to see the tracker view applied to an archive system - I could care less about the titles of a blog post (which are usually piss-poor), especially when most *entire* blog posts are small enough to fit into the teaser that the archive.module shows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 05:45:57 +0000 : Boris Mann Dries, I agree with Morbus. I can see what you're thinking with tracker (I think) -- have it handle read/unread for all sorts of stuff, in which case you'll want all sorts of filters. Archive is the place where all content can be navigated primarily by date. Let's commit this rather than live with the current completely useless archive.module for another entire release cycle. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:45:23 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Dries, I can see your point. The navigation interfce feels odd. But after some time I found this UI to be VERY good. it just feels odd because you are used to a calendar, yet this really is a better interface for browsing dates. It requires less clicks, offers all possible options in one glance etc. If we don't go for this archive module. Then please pretty please, remove at least the other one from core. It is completely useless as Boris states Better that people must use contribs than something that makes us look like we code crappy modules for core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:14:06 +0000 : Kobus It would be very sad indeed if this is not included in 4.7! I will definately replace it on all my local sites though. I understand the concern that the new widget is not as pretty as the old one, but in my opinion it is the "resistance to change" that speaks here. We're so used to think that an archive is square-ish, that this wide rectangle is a bit awkward at first. The gain in usefulness and easier navigation is totally making up for that. It also gives a clearer overview of a time-frame than is currently the case, so all in all, I am +1 for this. Regards, Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:17:51 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal Because I would like to to see this hit trunk as much as you all, I'll volunteer that _after_ this is in, I'll have a look if we can refactor/spice up the default looking of the new archive.module.. So Dries, any other concerns you have left? ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:44:14 +0000 : m3avrck I agree with said points, this module really cleans things up and works so much better. Let's get this in now and we still have a few weeks before 4.7 ships. We can deal with any outstanding bugs then... not that these are really any *new* bugs since they already exist in CVS. Not to mention this also fixes a slew of bugs with the current archive.module, so based on that, I think this one should be included. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:18:05 +0000 : Morbus Iff Very minor changes in this version: slightly different comments and a " to ' conversion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:19:12 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_5.module (11.18 KB) Grr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:02:38 +0000 : Norrin What do I do wrong? I installed the 'archive_5.module' from the post before. But when I call 'http://www.examplesite.com/archive' all I get is a blank page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:14:09 +0000 : Morbus Iff Norrin - you'll also need the CSS patch in #36, but that wouldn't cause what you're seeing. What HEAD are you running? A week old? Two weeks old? Today? What's your PHP error log say (assuming some sort of error reporting is enabled). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:23:50 +0000 : m3avrck Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/drupal_21.patch (21.2 KB) Here's a patch (new archive module and CSS rolled into one). Updated against current HEAD. Still working great, let's get this in and get rid of the useless one there :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:31:55 +0000 : Norrin What do you mean by HEAD? I'm running the 4.6.3 version of drupal. There is no error. I simply get a page with the following source code html body /body /html

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Replace core archive.module w/ codemonkeyx archive.module
by Norrin 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/29676 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/29676 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: archive.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Morbus Iff Reported by: Morbus Iff Updated by: Norrin Status: patch (ready to be committed) What do you mean by HEAD? I'm running the 4.6.3 version of drupal. There is no error. I simply get a page with the following source code html body /body /html Norrin Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:08:49 +0000 : Morbus Iff Over at http://drupal.org/node/8287, Berkes mentions that the core archive.module was considered being removed, per a discussion at the Drupal Sprint. Kjartan also mentions he would "love to have the archive module improved in general." In chatting with chx about this, he mentioned codemonkeyx's rewrite sitting in contrib/modules/archive/. I'll be doing some work with the archive.module over the next few days, and will be basing my changes around codemonkeyx's version, and making it compatible with HEAD. This general Issue is to move codemonkeyx's version into HEAD as a replacement to the existing archive.module. An unknown version of his replacement can be seen at http://www.codemonkeyx.net/archive. I'll be running a live HEAD version soon as well. These patches were made during the customization of Drupal by http://www.NHPR.org. In loving support of open source software, http://www.NHPR.org will continue to contribute patches they feel the community will benefit from. Questions about this patch should be directed to morbus(a)disobey.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:45:59 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues_2 (9.56 KB) As an example of a very early revision, see the attached, with the following changes from the current contrib CVS: * removed the year offset from theme_archive_navigation_years, which controlled how many year links to show at once in the top nav. For those with sites with more than five years, they'll WANT people to notice that they have five years, not to have to click on the earliest date and then have their expectations changed. * made the "created > $date" in archive_buildQuery "created >= $date" instead, to allow posts that were created at exactly midnight that day (like me, by design). * since there's no block, I made the menu item visible upon first load. this menu item is given "access content" permissions. More to come, including doxygen and gmt considerations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:47:41 +0000 : Morbus Iff Might as well start getting a review of it so I can fix 'em as they come in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:56:49 +0000 : Tobias Maier cant you provide a patch file? thanks for your work ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:04:01 +0000 : Morbus Iff The codemonkeyx version is a complete rewrite of the core archive.module. If I were to create a patch file against core, every line would be deleted, and every line would be new. Once I finish my revisions to codemonkey's version, I'll post the final version here, as well as a patch against his current CVS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:09:13 +0000 : Tobias Maier ok, thanks again :D ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:41:43 +0000 : Junyor +1 for this change. The archive.module in core is dead. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:14:30 +0000 : adrian What is the progress on this morbus ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:29:13 +0000 : Morbus Iff Adrian - I'll be attaching a new version either later today or tomorrow, with a CHANGELOG. I'll also be running a live version of it over on NHPR.org for people to play with. The three major things I'm worried about right now are a) doxygen, b) variable/function naming, c) GMT considerations. After those, I'll be exploring a patch for my own needs: the ability to get archives for particular term. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:53:34 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive.module (9.93 KB) Here's the latest, with the following changelog: * reordered some routines to be a little more workflowish. * renamed archive_buildQuery to archive_build_query. * general whitespace and formatting cleanup. * HEADish update: returning $output, not page templating it. * removed the reference of &$ad in archive_build_query. * test for the existence of arg(#)'s before validating them. * archive_validSomething changed to archive_valid_something. * removed unused vars: cur_date, cur_date_end. * renamed archive_buildURL to archive_build_url. * removed the HTML whitespace from the theming. * twiddled a lot of quotes and apostraphes. * removed 'future' CSS class. ill-defined. * reordered/renamed the CSS classes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:54:08 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_29676_archive_css.patch (1.56 KB) And the drupal.css patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:56:29 +0000 : Morbus Iff This version of the module is currently running live at http://www.nhpr.org/archive/. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:59:57 +0000 : Tobias Maier if i click for example on 2003 it would be good if this would go to january or december and marks them that this one will be shown now as you can see it if you click on january 2003. it has to select * on the first: the first month of writing * on the last: the last month of writing * on every else: january I hope you can understand what I mean... greets tobias ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:17:40 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_0.module (11.28 KB) Alright. I've attached another new version that adds a new feature that wasn't part of the original codemonkeyx CVS, but was chatted about on the devel list back in April. If this particular feature has bad code or needs heavy refactoring, certainly consider ONLY the version in comment #9 (and the matching drupal.css patch in #10). This new version supports dated archives based on taxonomy tids. It was a quick addition which NHPR.org needed (for the date nav; the normal tid archive pager wasn't strong enough for our needs). Since it was a quick addition, it supports only ONE tid at a time - the 'and/or' syntax for the taxonomy.module was not brought over. If that syntax was desired, it'd make more sense to create some sort of API for archive.module so that other nodes can take advantage of the dated nav in their normal pages (like node types, users, forums, etc.) The added code supports term matches at any granularity: # all node types that match tid 15000 ('The Front Porch') http://www.nhpr.org/archive/term/15000 # all 2005 node types that match tid 20 ('Health') http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2005/term/20 # all March, 2003 node types that match tid 9 ('Education') http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2003/3/term/9 # all July 11, 2003 node types that match tid 49 ('Economy') http://morbus.totalnetnh.net/nhpr/archive/2002/7/11/term/49 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:27:26 +0000 : Tobias Maier what does this mean? "Story Archives of 'archives' " on http://www.nhpr.org/archive/term/15000 should this maybe named? "Archive of 'The Front Porch'" if I go to http://www.nhpr.org/archive/term/20 I can only read "archives"... why is there a difference? - I never tested this module on my test site, because I'm not at home - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:29:34 +0000 : Morbus Iff Tobias: that wouldn't be possible, at least not accurately. The new archive.module supports browsing by year, month, and day, as you know. archive/2005 loads up all the data from a particular year and starts creating a pager out of it. Consider if you have 3 posts in December, and 15 posts in November. It wouldn't be "right" to highlight December because the pager display for the entire year would also include some of November's entries (since 3 is less than the pager increment). Likewise, if we ONLY showed the items from December, then we wouldn't have a "pager by year" feature, only a "pager by month (defaulting to December when none is selected)" feature. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:30:41 +0000 : Morbus Iff Tobias: regarding #14, that's an artifact of the templates that I'm using for NHPR, and has nothing to do with archive.module itself (in fact, once the anonymous cache expires, you'll see that little oopsie go away). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:31:47 +0000 : Tobias Maier I can see your right :) I hope it comes in HEAD before tomorrow :D ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:20:12 +0000 : dtan I apologize if this is already a known issue. http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2005/9 does not create a link for september 1st, even though there are 2 nodes listed (http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2005/9/1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:11:21 +0000 : Morbus Iff dtan: I'm pretty sure I know what this is - I'll address it either later today or tomorrow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:49:58 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_1.module (11.53 KB) Alright, I've attached a new archive.module - this is the version WITH term filtering enabled. I can make one without terms if necessary - otherwise, I'll just work from this one for now. This version fixes the bug that dtan saw, as a well as a bunch of other off-by-one errors. Of primary importance, however, is that all mktime's that mattered have been switched to gmmktime, which was one of the oft-reported Issues with the old archive.module. I want to eyeball them all again and make sure they're right though. The URLs from #13 are still operational and the CSS from #10 is still required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:02:06 +0000 : Morbus Iff In testing with a few people in #drupal, we've discovered a much bigger problem, which affects this rewritten module as well as the current core archive.module. In a nutshell, the node.created time is stored with time(). PHP's time() bases itself on the server time, NOT on GMT. Thus, for archive.module to work correctly, it must ALWAYS use mktime (relative to server time) and never consider the $user->timezone (relative to GMT). For archive.module, this would cause dates to always be considered via server time, which isn't good, but is better than the craziness going on now. Alternatively, we could try to convert server time to GMT first, and then work with that. The proper solution is to fix node.module to use gmmktime without any arguments for node.created, then have an update path that modifies all node .created and .modified values to GMT, not server time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 05:53:51 +0000 : Junyor Since that is also a problem with the old archive.module, I don't see why it should stop this from getting into core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:37:28 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal "Since that is also a problem with the old archive.module, I don't see why it should stop this from getting into core. " Well, I think it's better to only accept the best code rather than accepting bugs getting in core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:05:51 +0000 : Kobus I am with Junyor on this. If this can be fixed, great, but if not, it's not a train smash, as the old one exhibits the same problem. I say add the new archive module, if there are no other ciritical bugs with it. It is much more robust and usable than the old one. We desperately need a new archive module. I couldn't find any other bugs while testing with the links Morbus posted. I don't have a HEAD installation anywhere, so can't test it locally at this moment. Regards, Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:07:49 +0000 : Kobus BTW, code freeze means no new code added, right? Can't this module put in Core as is for the code freeze and the bug sorted out before the official release? Or is that just mean of me to suggest that? Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:13:09 +0000 : Junyor Stefan: The bug is already in core, since node.module is in core. Archive.module (old and new!) just shows that bug. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:20:35 +0000 : Tobias Maier I want to have it in core for 4.7, too!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:25:24 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal Junyor: I know that.. Though I think it's not good to accept code which we are aware of that it has bugs in it.. Offcourse this is very double, because drupal contains (probably) a lot of bugs, only they weren't spotted yet.. But, accepting code which has bugs in unacceptable imo.. For example, the node revisions patch had almost 40 reviews/rewritings from Gerhard and several others before it was accepted to be in core.. If we do not allow bugs to go into core, we don't have to bughunt and fix later which is a good thing.. So, imo we should first sort out the problem, then discuss what the best way is to fix the problem, and after that Squeeze that moron! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:11:06 +0000 : adrian I vote we include this module, and open up a new issue for the bug. It's not archive's fault that this occurs, it is just showing the data it has access to. The bug already exists in core too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:50:59 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_2.module (10.63 KB) Attached is a new, and most likely final, version of the archive.module. I've removed all user->timezone references - all date determinations are based on server time, which is also the time used in the "created" column of the node table. This is "more accurate" than what the core archive.module currently does (which'll always be wrong because it's treating server time as GMT, which isn't always the case). When node.module does start saving times as GMT properly, archive.module will have be to be tweaked with timezones and blah blah blah. I did fiddle around with determining the server offset in an attempt to get to a GMT base, but I didn't have much luck with that. The NHPR.org URLs above are still valid for testing. I need testers and reviewers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:55:16 +0000 : m3avrck I get these two PHP errors when I have *no* content in my Drupal install (just did a clean install to test it): warning: mktime() [<a href='function.mktime'>function.mktime</a>]: Windows does not support negative values for this function in websites\drupal_cvs\drupal\modules\archive.module on line 274. warning: date() [<a href='function.date'>function.date</a>]: Windows does not support dates prior to midnight (00:00:00), January 1, 1970 in websites\drupal_cvs\drupal\modules\archive.module on line 274. Once I add content, these go away. Need some better checks to make sure if there is *no* content you don't get weird errors and what not :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:55:45 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_29676_archive_css_0.patch (1.56 KB) Updated drupal.css patch for HEAD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:26:01 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_3.module (10.75 KB) Attached is the complete module, fixed for m3avrck's #31. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:30:36 +0000 : m3avrck Reviewed patch and further test, running great over here! Definetly +1 for this one! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:03:36 +0000 : Morbus Iff Note: The NHPR folks preferred their archives to be sorted from earliest to latest (SQL ASC vs. DESC) for month/day listings, so no longer use the NHPR.org URLs above as representative of the module itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:26:37 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/drupal.css (10.35 KB) CVS updated for HEAD again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:27:00 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_29676_archive_css_1.patch (1.56 KB) GRRR. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:18:48 +0000 : m3avrck Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_0.patch (20.72 KB) Rerolled patch against head. Also created one patch that fixes both archive.module and drupal.css so it's a clean and simple process now :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:23:55 +0000 : m3avrck Just retested with the latest patch I made, applies cleanly against HEAD and *everything* works great and looks great too. No errors of any kind, even works on PHP 5.0.5 with no call by reference errors, :D Let's get this baby in! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:26:06 +0000 : Souvent22 +1. I like the new patch, makes things easier to patch. Very slick. I like the break down of years, to months, to days. Very nice. Ready to go I say. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:55:56 +0000 : m3avrck Bump to the top, freeze coming soon!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:05:21 +0000 : Cvbge So, pgsql does not have FROM_UNIXTIME nor MONTH functions... I'd prefer, if it is possibile, to change the query to not use this mysql-specific functions, then writing pgsql specific equivalents... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:39:20 +0000 : Dries It might be me, but visually, I like the little calendar block better. Though, this new (slightly ugly) widget is easier to navigate. I'd like to postpone this patch until after 4.7. While nice, I'm not convinced this is the right approach. Like, adding the term-magic to the archive module is more of a hack than anything else. What's next, adding a uid-check so you can filter by user ID? Or a type check so you can filter by node type? Ultimately this should be merged into the tracker module, or better yet, into a generic "query string to node query"-mechanism. (I've outlined this elsewhere in the issues.) There is also a bunch of very minor code issues that need to be looked at. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:06:57 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_4.module (11.18 KB) I've attached an updated version, which includes gmmktime + user->timezones, as well as changing all date()'s to format_date()'s. As for nodetypes/users, actually, yeah, NHPR.org is interested in those filter functionalities too (and actually wanted them a few weeks ago). Haven't yet addressed the PSQL stuff from Cvbge. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:09:46 +0000 : Morbus Iff I'm not entirely convinced that this should be part of tracker.module - the tracker module is to "track changes" or to "track updates". That's an entire different problem than archived data, which probably hasn't been changed for months or even years. I'd hate to see the tracker view applied to an archive system - I could care less about the titles of a blog post (which are usually piss-poor), especially when most *entire* blog posts are small enough to fit into the teaser that the archive.module shows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 05:45:57 +0000 : Boris Mann Dries, I agree with Morbus. I can see what you're thinking with tracker (I think) -- have it handle read/unread for all sorts of stuff, in which case you'll want all sorts of filters. Archive is the place where all content can be navigated primarily by date. Let's commit this rather than live with the current completely useless archive.module for another entire release cycle. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:45:23 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Dries, I can see your point. The navigation interfce feels odd. But after some time I found this UI to be VERY good. it just feels odd because you are used to a calendar, yet this really is a better interface for browsing dates. It requires less clicks, offers all possible options in one glance etc. If we don't go for this archive module. Then please pretty please, remove at least the other one from core. It is completely useless as Boris states Better that people must use contribs than something that makes us look like we code crappy modules for core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:14:06 +0000 : Kobus It would be very sad indeed if this is not included in 4.7! I will definately replace it on all my local sites though. I understand the concern that the new widget is not as pretty as the old one, but in my opinion it is the "resistance to change" that speaks here. We're so used to think that an archive is square-ish, that this wide rectangle is a bit awkward at first. The gain in usefulness and easier navigation is totally making up for that. It also gives a clearer overview of a time-frame than is currently the case, so all in all, I am +1 for this. Regards, Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:17:51 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal Because I would like to to see this hit trunk as much as you all, I'll volunteer that _after_ this is in, I'll have a look if we can refactor/spice up the default looking of the new archive.module.. So Dries, any other concerns you have left? ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:44:14 +0000 : m3avrck I agree with said points, this module really cleans things up and works so much better. Let's get this in now and we still have a few weeks before 4.7 ships. We can deal with any outstanding bugs then... not that these are really any *new* bugs since they already exist in CVS. Not to mention this also fixes a slew of bugs with the current archive.module, so based on that, I think this one should be included. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:18:05 +0000 : Morbus Iff Very minor changes in this version: slightly different comments and a " to ' conversion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:19:12 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_5.module (11.18 KB) Grr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:02:38 +0000 : Norrin What do I do wrong? I installed the 'archive_5.module' from the post before. But when I call 'http://www.examplesite.com/archive' all I get is a blank page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:14:09 +0000 : Morbus Iff Norrin - you'll also need the CSS patch in #36, but that wouldn't cause what you're seeing. What HEAD are you running? A week old? Two weeks old? Today? What's your PHP error log say (assuming some sort of error reporting is enabled). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:23:50 +0000 : m3avrck Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/drupal_21.patch (21.2 KB) Here's a patch (new archive module and CSS rolled into one). Updated against current HEAD. Still working great, let's get this in and get rid of the useless one there :)

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Replace core archive.module w/ codemonkeyx archive.module
by m3avrck 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/29676 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/29676 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: archive.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Morbus Iff Reported by: Morbus Iff Updated by: m3avrck -Status: patch (code needs work) +Status: patch (ready to be committed) Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/drupal_21.patch (21.2 KB) Here's a patch (new archive module and CSS rolled into one). Updated against current HEAD. Still working great, let's get this in and get rid of the useless one there :) m3avrck Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:08:49 +0000 : Morbus Iff Over at http://drupal.org/node/8287, Berkes mentions that the core archive.module was considered being removed, per a discussion at the Drupal Sprint. Kjartan also mentions he would "love to have the archive module improved in general." In chatting with chx about this, he mentioned codemonkeyx's rewrite sitting in contrib/modules/archive/. I'll be doing some work with the archive.module over the next few days, and will be basing my changes around codemonkeyx's version, and making it compatible with HEAD. This general Issue is to move codemonkeyx's version into HEAD as a replacement to the existing archive.module. An unknown version of his replacement can be seen at http://www.codemonkeyx.net/archive. I'll be running a live HEAD version soon as well. These patches were made during the customization of Drupal by http://www.NHPR.org. In loving support of open source software, http://www.NHPR.org will continue to contribute patches they feel the community will benefit from. Questions about this patch should be directed to morbus(a)disobey.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:45:59 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues_2 (9.56 KB) As an example of a very early revision, see the attached, with the following changes from the current contrib CVS: * removed the year offset from theme_archive_navigation_years, which controlled how many year links to show at once in the top nav. For those with sites with more than five years, they'll WANT people to notice that they have five years, not to have to click on the earliest date and then have their expectations changed. * made the "created > $date" in archive_buildQuery "created >= $date" instead, to allow posts that were created at exactly midnight that day (like me, by design). * since there's no block, I made the menu item visible upon first load. this menu item is given "access content" permissions. More to come, including doxygen and gmt considerations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:47:41 +0000 : Morbus Iff Might as well start getting a review of it so I can fix 'em as they come in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:56:49 +0000 : Tobias Maier cant you provide a patch file? thanks for your work ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:04:01 +0000 : Morbus Iff The codemonkeyx version is a complete rewrite of the core archive.module. If I were to create a patch file against core, every line would be deleted, and every line would be new. Once I finish my revisions to codemonkey's version, I'll post the final version here, as well as a patch against his current CVS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:09:13 +0000 : Tobias Maier ok, thanks again :D ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:41:43 +0000 : Junyor +1 for this change. The archive.module in core is dead. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:14:30 +0000 : adrian What is the progress on this morbus ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:29:13 +0000 : Morbus Iff Adrian - I'll be attaching a new version either later today or tomorrow, with a CHANGELOG. I'll also be running a live version of it over on NHPR.org for people to play with. The three major things I'm worried about right now are a) doxygen, b) variable/function naming, c) GMT considerations. After those, I'll be exploring a patch for my own needs: the ability to get archives for particular term. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:53:34 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive.module (9.93 KB) Here's the latest, with the following changelog: * reordered some routines to be a little more workflowish. * renamed archive_buildQuery to archive_build_query. * general whitespace and formatting cleanup. * HEADish update: returning $output, not page templating it. * removed the reference of &$ad in archive_build_query. * test for the existence of arg(#)'s before validating them. * archive_validSomething changed to archive_valid_something. * removed unused vars: cur_date, cur_date_end. * renamed archive_buildURL to archive_build_url. * removed the HTML whitespace from the theming. * twiddled a lot of quotes and apostraphes. * removed 'future' CSS class. ill-defined. * reordered/renamed the CSS classes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:54:08 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_29676_archive_css.patch (1.56 KB) And the drupal.css patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:56:29 +0000 : Morbus Iff This version of the module is currently running live at http://www.nhpr.org/archive/. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:59:57 +0000 : Tobias Maier if i click for example on 2003 it would be good if this would go to january or december and marks them that this one will be shown now as you can see it if you click on january 2003. it has to select * on the first: the first month of writing * on the last: the last month of writing * on every else: january I hope you can understand what I mean... greets tobias ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:17:40 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_0.module (11.28 KB) Alright. I've attached another new version that adds a new feature that wasn't part of the original codemonkeyx CVS, but was chatted about on the devel list back in April. If this particular feature has bad code or needs heavy refactoring, certainly consider ONLY the version in comment #9 (and the matching drupal.css patch in #10). This new version supports dated archives based on taxonomy tids. It was a quick addition which NHPR.org needed (for the date nav; the normal tid archive pager wasn't strong enough for our needs). Since it was a quick addition, it supports only ONE tid at a time - the 'and/or' syntax for the taxonomy.module was not brought over. If that syntax was desired, it'd make more sense to create some sort of API for archive.module so that other nodes can take advantage of the dated nav in their normal pages (like node types, users, forums, etc.) The added code supports term matches at any granularity: # all node types that match tid 15000 ('The Front Porch') http://www.nhpr.org/archive/term/15000 # all 2005 node types that match tid 20 ('Health') http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2005/term/20 # all March, 2003 node types that match tid 9 ('Education') http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2003/3/term/9 # all July 11, 2003 node types that match tid 49 ('Economy') http://morbus.totalnetnh.net/nhpr/archive/2002/7/11/term/49 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:27:26 +0000 : Tobias Maier what does this mean? "Story Archives of 'archives' " on http://www.nhpr.org/archive/term/15000 should this maybe named? "Archive of 'The Front Porch'" if I go to http://www.nhpr.org/archive/term/20 I can only read "archives"... why is there a difference? - I never tested this module on my test site, because I'm not at home - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:29:34 +0000 : Morbus Iff Tobias: that wouldn't be possible, at least not accurately. The new archive.module supports browsing by year, month, and day, as you know. archive/2005 loads up all the data from a particular year and starts creating a pager out of it. Consider if you have 3 posts in December, and 15 posts in November. It wouldn't be "right" to highlight December because the pager display for the entire year would also include some of November's entries (since 3 is less than the pager increment). Likewise, if we ONLY showed the items from December, then we wouldn't have a "pager by year" feature, only a "pager by month (defaulting to December when none is selected)" feature. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:30:41 +0000 : Morbus Iff Tobias: regarding #14, that's an artifact of the templates that I'm using for NHPR, and has nothing to do with archive.module itself (in fact, once the anonymous cache expires, you'll see that little oopsie go away). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:31:47 +0000 : Tobias Maier I can see your right :) I hope it comes in HEAD before tomorrow :D ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:20:12 +0000 : dtan I apologize if this is already a known issue. http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2005/9 does not create a link for september 1st, even though there are 2 nodes listed (http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2005/9/1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:11:21 +0000 : Morbus Iff dtan: I'm pretty sure I know what this is - I'll address it either later today or tomorrow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:49:58 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_1.module (11.53 KB) Alright, I've attached a new archive.module - this is the version WITH term filtering enabled. I can make one without terms if necessary - otherwise, I'll just work from this one for now. This version fixes the bug that dtan saw, as a well as a bunch of other off-by-one errors. Of primary importance, however, is that all mktime's that mattered have been switched to gmmktime, which was one of the oft-reported Issues with the old archive.module. I want to eyeball them all again and make sure they're right though. The URLs from #13 are still operational and the CSS from #10 is still required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:02:06 +0000 : Morbus Iff In testing with a few people in #drupal, we've discovered a much bigger problem, which affects this rewritten module as well as the current core archive.module. In a nutshell, the node.created time is stored with time(). PHP's time() bases itself on the server time, NOT on GMT. Thus, for archive.module to work correctly, it must ALWAYS use mktime (relative to server time) and never consider the $user->timezone (relative to GMT). For archive.module, this would cause dates to always be considered via server time, which isn't good, but is better than the craziness going on now. Alternatively, we could try to convert server time to GMT first, and then work with that. The proper solution is to fix node.module to use gmmktime without any arguments for node.created, then have an update path that modifies all node .created and .modified values to GMT, not server time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 05:53:51 +0000 : Junyor Since that is also a problem with the old archive.module, I don't see why it should stop this from getting into core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:37:28 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal "Since that is also a problem with the old archive.module, I don't see why it should stop this from getting into core. " Well, I think it's better to only accept the best code rather than accepting bugs getting in core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:05:51 +0000 : Kobus I am with Junyor on this. If this can be fixed, great, but if not, it's not a train smash, as the old one exhibits the same problem. I say add the new archive module, if there are no other ciritical bugs with it. It is much more robust and usable than the old one. We desperately need a new archive module. I couldn't find any other bugs while testing with the links Morbus posted. I don't have a HEAD installation anywhere, so can't test it locally at this moment. Regards, Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:07:49 +0000 : Kobus BTW, code freeze means no new code added, right? Can't this module put in Core as is for the code freeze and the bug sorted out before the official release? Or is that just mean of me to suggest that? Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:13:09 +0000 : Junyor Stefan: The bug is already in core, since node.module is in core. Archive.module (old and new!) just shows that bug. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:20:35 +0000 : Tobias Maier I want to have it in core for 4.7, too!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:25:24 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal Junyor: I know that.. Though I think it's not good to accept code which we are aware of that it has bugs in it.. Offcourse this is very double, because drupal contains (probably) a lot of bugs, only they weren't spotted yet.. But, accepting code which has bugs in unacceptable imo.. For example, the node revisions patch had almost 40 reviews/rewritings from Gerhard and several others before it was accepted to be in core.. If we do not allow bugs to go into core, we don't have to bughunt and fix later which is a good thing.. So, imo we should first sort out the problem, then discuss what the best way is to fix the problem, and after that Squeeze that moron! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:11:06 +0000 : adrian I vote we include this module, and open up a new issue for the bug. It's not archive's fault that this occurs, it is just showing the data it has access to. The bug already exists in core too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:50:59 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_2.module (10.63 KB) Attached is a new, and most likely final, version of the archive.module. I've removed all user->timezone references - all date determinations are based on server time, which is also the time used in the "created" column of the node table. This is "more accurate" than what the core archive.module currently does (which'll always be wrong because it's treating server time as GMT, which isn't always the case). When node.module does start saving times as GMT properly, archive.module will have be to be tweaked with timezones and blah blah blah. I did fiddle around with determining the server offset in an attempt to get to a GMT base, but I didn't have much luck with that. The NHPR.org URLs above are still valid for testing. I need testers and reviewers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:55:16 +0000 : m3avrck I get these two PHP errors when I have *no* content in my Drupal install (just did a clean install to test it): warning: mktime() [<a href='function.mktime'>function.mktime</a>]: Windows does not support negative values for this function in websites\drupal_cvs\drupal\modules\archive.module on line 274. warning: date() [<a href='function.date'>function.date</a>]: Windows does not support dates prior to midnight (00:00:00), January 1, 1970 in websites\drupal_cvs\drupal\modules\archive.module on line 274. Once I add content, these go away. Need some better checks to make sure if there is *no* content you don't get weird errors and what not :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:55:45 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_29676_archive_css_0.patch (1.56 KB) Updated drupal.css patch for HEAD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:26:01 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_3.module (10.75 KB) Attached is the complete module, fixed for m3avrck's #31. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:30:36 +0000 : m3avrck Reviewed patch and further test, running great over here! Definetly +1 for this one! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:03:36 +0000 : Morbus Iff Note: The NHPR folks preferred their archives to be sorted from earliest to latest (SQL ASC vs. DESC) for month/day listings, so no longer use the NHPR.org URLs above as representative of the module itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:26:37 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/drupal.css (10.35 KB) CVS updated for HEAD again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:27:00 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_29676_archive_css_1.patch (1.56 KB) GRRR. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:18:48 +0000 : m3avrck Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_0.patch (20.72 KB) Rerolled patch against head. Also created one patch that fixes both archive.module and drupal.css so it's a clean and simple process now :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:23:55 +0000 : m3avrck Just retested with the latest patch I made, applies cleanly against HEAD and *everything* works great and looks great too. No errors of any kind, even works on PHP 5.0.5 with no call by reference errors, :D Let's get this baby in! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:26:06 +0000 : Souvent22 +1. I like the new patch, makes things easier to patch. Very slick. I like the break down of years, to months, to days. Very nice. Ready to go I say. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:55:56 +0000 : m3avrck Bump to the top, freeze coming soon!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:05:21 +0000 : Cvbge So, pgsql does not have FROM_UNIXTIME nor MONTH functions... I'd prefer, if it is possibile, to change the query to not use this mysql-specific functions, then writing pgsql specific equivalents... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:39:20 +0000 : Dries It might be me, but visually, I like the little calendar block better. Though, this new (slightly ugly) widget is easier to navigate. I'd like to postpone this patch until after 4.7. While nice, I'm not convinced this is the right approach. Like, adding the term-magic to the archive module is more of a hack than anything else. What's next, adding a uid-check so you can filter by user ID? Or a type check so you can filter by node type? Ultimately this should be merged into the tracker module, or better yet, into a generic "query string to node query"-mechanism. (I've outlined this elsewhere in the issues.) There is also a bunch of very minor code issues that need to be looked at. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:06:57 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_4.module (11.18 KB) I've attached an updated version, which includes gmmktime + user->timezones, as well as changing all date()'s to format_date()'s. As for nodetypes/users, actually, yeah, NHPR.org is interested in those filter functionalities too (and actually wanted them a few weeks ago). Haven't yet addressed the PSQL stuff from Cvbge. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:09:46 +0000 : Morbus Iff I'm not entirely convinced that this should be part of tracker.module - the tracker module is to "track changes" or to "track updates". That's an entire different problem than archived data, which probably hasn't been changed for months or even years. I'd hate to see the tracker view applied to an archive system - I could care less about the titles of a blog post (which are usually piss-poor), especially when most *entire* blog posts are small enough to fit into the teaser that the archive.module shows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 05:45:57 +0000 : Boris Mann Dries, I agree with Morbus. I can see what you're thinking with tracker (I think) -- have it handle read/unread for all sorts of stuff, in which case you'll want all sorts of filters. Archive is the place where all content can be navigated primarily by date. Let's commit this rather than live with the current completely useless archive.module for another entire release cycle. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:45:23 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Dries, I can see your point. The navigation interfce feels odd. But after some time I found this UI to be VERY good. it just feels odd because you are used to a calendar, yet this really is a better interface for browsing dates. It requires less clicks, offers all possible options in one glance etc. If we don't go for this archive module. Then please pretty please, remove at least the other one from core. It is completely useless as Boris states Better that people must use contribs than something that makes us look like we code crappy modules for core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:14:06 +0000 : Kobus It would be very sad indeed if this is not included in 4.7! I will definately replace it on all my local sites though. I understand the concern that the new widget is not as pretty as the old one, but in my opinion it is the "resistance to change" that speaks here. We're so used to think that an archive is square-ish, that this wide rectangle is a bit awkward at first. The gain in usefulness and easier navigation is totally making up for that. It also gives a clearer overview of a time-frame than is currently the case, so all in all, I am +1 for this. Regards, Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:17:51 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal Because I would like to to see this hit trunk as much as you all, I'll volunteer that _after_ this is in, I'll have a look if we can refactor/spice up the default looking of the new archive.module.. So Dries, any other concerns you have left? ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:44:14 +0000 : m3avrck I agree with said points, this module really cleans things up and works so much better. Let's get this in now and we still have a few weeks before 4.7 ships. We can deal with any outstanding bugs then... not that these are really any *new* bugs since they already exist in CVS. Not to mention this also fixes a slew of bugs with the current archive.module, so based on that, I think this one should be included. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:18:05 +0000 : Morbus Iff Very minor changes in this version: slightly different comments and a " to ' conversion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:19:12 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_5.module (11.18 KB) Grr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:02:38 +0000 : Norrin What do I do wrong? I installed the 'archive_5.module' from the post before. But when I call 'http://www.examplesite.com/archive' all I get is a blank page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:14:09 +0000 : Morbus Iff Norrin - you'll also need the CSS patch in #36, but that wouldn't cause what you're seeing. What HEAD are you running? A week old? Two weeks old? Today? What's your PHP error log say (assuming some sort of error reporting is enabled).

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Enable customizing of "Title" field on node forms
by fago 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '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: fago Status: patch (code needs work) Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/nodetitle-updated3.patch (7.11 KB) you are right. is it better so? fago 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). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:20:21 +0000 : Thox Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/title-validation.patch (6.22 KB) attached again (issue preview seems busted?) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:57:26 +0000 : nedjo Thanks chx, killes, and Thox for updates and fixes on the patch. I've applied and tested it and Thox's changes seem to address the title validation issue. It's a couple of releases later--it would be great to see this fix applied! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:17:25 +0000 : matt westgate Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/title-validation_0.patch (6.04 KB) +1 I've needed to change the name of the title field or even altogether hide it for custom modules. Issue preview was working for me. We should document for module developers the implications title-less nodes (e.g., less informative watchdog entries, harder to edit nodes, node title lists become buggy, etc). I couldn't get the patch to apply cleanly to HEAD so here's a new one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:42:30 +0000 : Robrecht Jacques Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/title-validation_1.patch (6.23 KB) +1 I need this too: I want to be able to set the title of a node automatically. Patch still applies with offset (rerolled patch attached). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:59:39 +0000 : fago +1 for this functionality i've tested the patch and it looks nice, however node_validate_title() produces an validation error, where the field is called title, which isn't suitable if the modules changes the name, as the forum.module does. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:50:15 +0000 : Thox Perhaps node_validate_title() should be passed the name of the field? 'Title' by default. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:22:24 +0000 : fago Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/nodetitle-updated.patch (7.05 KB) i've updated node_validate_title() as thox suggested and added a title "question" to the poll.module, as there was no title field for it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:01:17 +0000 : fago Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/nodetitle-updated2.patch (7.13 KB) updated the patch again. now node_validate_title() takes the whole error message as optional second parameter as this allows more customization by modules. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:49:25 +0000 : Dries I'm cool with this patch but don't like node_validate_title(). Can't we simply this function? 3 nested ifs are somewhat hairy. Can we beautify this a little? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:02:38 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org fixing status

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Replace core archive.module w/ codemonkeyx archive.module
by Morbus Iff 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/29676 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/29676 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: archive.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Morbus Iff Reported by: Morbus Iff Updated by: Morbus Iff Status: patch (code needs work) Norrin - you'll also need the CSS patch in #36, but that wouldn't cause what you're seeing. What HEAD are you running? A week old? Two weeks old? Today? What's your PHP error log say (assuming some sort of error reporting is enabled). Morbus Iff Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:08:49 +0000 : Morbus Iff Over at http://drupal.org/node/8287, Berkes mentions that the core archive.module was considered being removed, per a discussion at the Drupal Sprint. Kjartan also mentions he would "love to have the archive module improved in general." In chatting with chx about this, he mentioned codemonkeyx's rewrite sitting in contrib/modules/archive/. I'll be doing some work with the archive.module over the next few days, and will be basing my changes around codemonkeyx's version, and making it compatible with HEAD. This general Issue is to move codemonkeyx's version into HEAD as a replacement to the existing archive.module. An unknown version of his replacement can be seen at http://www.codemonkeyx.net/archive. I'll be running a live HEAD version soon as well. These patches were made during the customization of Drupal by http://www.NHPR.org. In loving support of open source software, http://www.NHPR.org will continue to contribute patches they feel the community will benefit from. Questions about this patch should be directed to morbus(a)disobey.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:45:59 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues_2 (9.56 KB) As an example of a very early revision, see the attached, with the following changes from the current contrib CVS: * removed the year offset from theme_archive_navigation_years, which controlled how many year links to show at once in the top nav. For those with sites with more than five years, they'll WANT people to notice that they have five years, not to have to click on the earliest date and then have their expectations changed. * made the "created > $date" in archive_buildQuery "created >= $date" instead, to allow posts that were created at exactly midnight that day (like me, by design). * since there's no block, I made the menu item visible upon first load. this menu item is given "access content" permissions. More to come, including doxygen and gmt considerations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:47:41 +0000 : Morbus Iff Might as well start getting a review of it so I can fix 'em as they come in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:56:49 +0000 : Tobias Maier cant you provide a patch file? thanks for your work ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:04:01 +0000 : Morbus Iff The codemonkeyx version is a complete rewrite of the core archive.module. If I were to create a patch file against core, every line would be deleted, and every line would be new. Once I finish my revisions to codemonkey's version, I'll post the final version here, as well as a patch against his current CVS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:09:13 +0000 : Tobias Maier ok, thanks again :D ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:41:43 +0000 : Junyor +1 for this change. The archive.module in core is dead. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:14:30 +0000 : adrian What is the progress on this morbus ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:29:13 +0000 : Morbus Iff Adrian - I'll be attaching a new version either later today or tomorrow, with a CHANGELOG. I'll also be running a live version of it over on NHPR.org for people to play with. The three major things I'm worried about right now are a) doxygen, b) variable/function naming, c) GMT considerations. After those, I'll be exploring a patch for my own needs: the ability to get archives for particular term. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:53:34 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive.module (9.93 KB) Here's the latest, with the following changelog: * reordered some routines to be a little more workflowish. * renamed archive_buildQuery to archive_build_query. * general whitespace and formatting cleanup. * HEADish update: returning $output, not page templating it. * removed the reference of &$ad in archive_build_query. * test for the existence of arg(#)'s before validating them. * archive_validSomething changed to archive_valid_something. * removed unused vars: cur_date, cur_date_end. * renamed archive_buildURL to archive_build_url. * removed the HTML whitespace from the theming. * twiddled a lot of quotes and apostraphes. * removed 'future' CSS class. ill-defined. * reordered/renamed the CSS classes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:54:08 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_29676_archive_css.patch (1.56 KB) And the drupal.css patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:56:29 +0000 : Morbus Iff This version of the module is currently running live at http://www.nhpr.org/archive/. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:59:57 +0000 : Tobias Maier if i click for example on 2003 it would be good if this would go to january or december and marks them that this one will be shown now as you can see it if you click on january 2003. it has to select * on the first: the first month of writing * on the last: the last month of writing * on every else: january I hope you can understand what I mean... greets tobias ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:17:40 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_0.module (11.28 KB) Alright. I've attached another new version that adds a new feature that wasn't part of the original codemonkeyx CVS, but was chatted about on the devel list back in April. If this particular feature has bad code or needs heavy refactoring, certainly consider ONLY the version in comment #9 (and the matching drupal.css patch in #10). This new version supports dated archives based on taxonomy tids. It was a quick addition which NHPR.org needed (for the date nav; the normal tid archive pager wasn't strong enough for our needs). Since it was a quick addition, it supports only ONE tid at a time - the 'and/or' syntax for the taxonomy.module was not brought over. If that syntax was desired, it'd make more sense to create some sort of API for archive.module so that other nodes can take advantage of the dated nav in their normal pages (like node types, users, forums, etc.) The added code supports term matches at any granularity: # all node types that match tid 15000 ('The Front Porch') http://www.nhpr.org/archive/term/15000 # all 2005 node types that match tid 20 ('Health') http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2005/term/20 # all March, 2003 node types that match tid 9 ('Education') http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2003/3/term/9 # all July 11, 2003 node types that match tid 49 ('Economy') http://morbus.totalnetnh.net/nhpr/archive/2002/7/11/term/49 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:27:26 +0000 : Tobias Maier what does this mean? "Story Archives of 'archives' " on http://www.nhpr.org/archive/term/15000 should this maybe named? "Archive of 'The Front Porch'" if I go to http://www.nhpr.org/archive/term/20 I can only read "archives"... why is there a difference? - I never tested this module on my test site, because I'm not at home - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:29:34 +0000 : Morbus Iff Tobias: that wouldn't be possible, at least not accurately. The new archive.module supports browsing by year, month, and day, as you know. archive/2005 loads up all the data from a particular year and starts creating a pager out of it. Consider if you have 3 posts in December, and 15 posts in November. It wouldn't be "right" to highlight December because the pager display for the entire year would also include some of November's entries (since 3 is less than the pager increment). Likewise, if we ONLY showed the items from December, then we wouldn't have a "pager by year" feature, only a "pager by month (defaulting to December when none is selected)" feature. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:30:41 +0000 : Morbus Iff Tobias: regarding #14, that's an artifact of the templates that I'm using for NHPR, and has nothing to do with archive.module itself (in fact, once the anonymous cache expires, you'll see that little oopsie go away). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:31:47 +0000 : Tobias Maier I can see your right :) I hope it comes in HEAD before tomorrow :D ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:20:12 +0000 : dtan I apologize if this is already a known issue. http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2005/9 does not create a link for september 1st, even though there are 2 nodes listed (http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2005/9/1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:11:21 +0000 : Morbus Iff dtan: I'm pretty sure I know what this is - I'll address it either later today or tomorrow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:49:58 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_1.module (11.53 KB) Alright, I've attached a new archive.module - this is the version WITH term filtering enabled. I can make one without terms if necessary - otherwise, I'll just work from this one for now. This version fixes the bug that dtan saw, as a well as a bunch of other off-by-one errors. Of primary importance, however, is that all mktime's that mattered have been switched to gmmktime, which was one of the oft-reported Issues with the old archive.module. I want to eyeball them all again and make sure they're right though. The URLs from #13 are still operational and the CSS from #10 is still required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:02:06 +0000 : Morbus Iff In testing with a few people in #drupal, we've discovered a much bigger problem, which affects this rewritten module as well as the current core archive.module. In a nutshell, the node.created time is stored with time(). PHP's time() bases itself on the server time, NOT on GMT. Thus, for archive.module to work correctly, it must ALWAYS use mktime (relative to server time) and never consider the $user->timezone (relative to GMT). For archive.module, this would cause dates to always be considered via server time, which isn't good, but is better than the craziness going on now. Alternatively, we could try to convert server time to GMT first, and then work with that. The proper solution is to fix node.module to use gmmktime without any arguments for node.created, then have an update path that modifies all node .created and .modified values to GMT, not server time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 05:53:51 +0000 : Junyor Since that is also a problem with the old archive.module, I don't see why it should stop this from getting into core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:37:28 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal "Since that is also a problem with the old archive.module, I don't see why it should stop this from getting into core. " Well, I think it's better to only accept the best code rather than accepting bugs getting in core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:05:51 +0000 : Kobus I am with Junyor on this. If this can be fixed, great, but if not, it's not a train smash, as the old one exhibits the same problem. I say add the new archive module, if there are no other ciritical bugs with it. It is much more robust and usable than the old one. We desperately need a new archive module. I couldn't find any other bugs while testing with the links Morbus posted. I don't have a HEAD installation anywhere, so can't test it locally at this moment. Regards, Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:07:49 +0000 : Kobus BTW, code freeze means no new code added, right? Can't this module put in Core as is for the code freeze and the bug sorted out before the official release? Or is that just mean of me to suggest that? Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:13:09 +0000 : Junyor Stefan: The bug is already in core, since node.module is in core. Archive.module (old and new!) just shows that bug. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:20:35 +0000 : Tobias Maier I want to have it in core for 4.7, too!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:25:24 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal Junyor: I know that.. Though I think it's not good to accept code which we are aware of that it has bugs in it.. Offcourse this is very double, because drupal contains (probably) a lot of bugs, only they weren't spotted yet.. But, accepting code which has bugs in unacceptable imo.. For example, the node revisions patch had almost 40 reviews/rewritings from Gerhard and several others before it was accepted to be in core.. If we do not allow bugs to go into core, we don't have to bughunt and fix later which is a good thing.. So, imo we should first sort out the problem, then discuss what the best way is to fix the problem, and after that Squeeze that moron! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:11:06 +0000 : adrian I vote we include this module, and open up a new issue for the bug. It's not archive's fault that this occurs, it is just showing the data it has access to. The bug already exists in core too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:50:59 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_2.module (10.63 KB) Attached is a new, and most likely final, version of the archive.module. I've removed all user->timezone references - all date determinations are based on server time, which is also the time used in the "created" column of the node table. This is "more accurate" than what the core archive.module currently does (which'll always be wrong because it's treating server time as GMT, which isn't always the case). When node.module does start saving times as GMT properly, archive.module will have be to be tweaked with timezones and blah blah blah. I did fiddle around with determining the server offset in an attempt to get to a GMT base, but I didn't have much luck with that. The NHPR.org URLs above are still valid for testing. I need testers and reviewers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:55:16 +0000 : m3avrck I get these two PHP errors when I have *no* content in my Drupal install (just did a clean install to test it): warning: mktime() [<a href='function.mktime'>function.mktime</a>]: Windows does not support negative values for this function in websites\drupal_cvs\drupal\modules\archive.module on line 274. warning: date() [<a href='function.date'>function.date</a>]: Windows does not support dates prior to midnight (00:00:00), January 1, 1970 in websites\drupal_cvs\drupal\modules\archive.module on line 274. Once I add content, these go away. Need some better checks to make sure if there is *no* content you don't get weird errors and what not :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:55:45 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_29676_archive_css_0.patch (1.56 KB) Updated drupal.css patch for HEAD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:26:01 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_3.module (10.75 KB) Attached is the complete module, fixed for m3avrck's #31. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:30:36 +0000 : m3avrck Reviewed patch and further test, running great over here! Definetly +1 for this one! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:03:36 +0000 : Morbus Iff Note: The NHPR folks preferred their archives to be sorted from earliest to latest (SQL ASC vs. DESC) for month/day listings, so no longer use the NHPR.org URLs above as representative of the module itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:26:37 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/drupal.css (10.35 KB) CVS updated for HEAD again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:27:00 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_29676_archive_css_1.patch (1.56 KB) GRRR. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:18:48 +0000 : m3avrck Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_0.patch (20.72 KB) Rerolled patch against head. Also created one patch that fixes both archive.module and drupal.css so it's a clean and simple process now :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:23:55 +0000 : m3avrck Just retested with the latest patch I made, applies cleanly against HEAD and *everything* works great and looks great too. No errors of any kind, even works on PHP 5.0.5 with no call by reference errors, :D Let's get this baby in! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:26:06 +0000 : Souvent22 +1. I like the new patch, makes things easier to patch. Very slick. I like the break down of years, to months, to days. Very nice. Ready to go I say. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:55:56 +0000 : m3avrck Bump to the top, freeze coming soon!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:05:21 +0000 : Cvbge So, pgsql does not have FROM_UNIXTIME nor MONTH functions... I'd prefer, if it is possibile, to change the query to not use this mysql-specific functions, then writing pgsql specific equivalents... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:39:20 +0000 : Dries It might be me, but visually, I like the little calendar block better. Though, this new (slightly ugly) widget is easier to navigate. I'd like to postpone this patch until after 4.7. While nice, I'm not convinced this is the right approach. Like, adding the term-magic to the archive module is more of a hack than anything else. What's next, adding a uid-check so you can filter by user ID? Or a type check so you can filter by node type? Ultimately this should be merged into the tracker module, or better yet, into a generic "query string to node query"-mechanism. (I've outlined this elsewhere in the issues.) There is also a bunch of very minor code issues that need to be looked at. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:06:57 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_4.module (11.18 KB) I've attached an updated version, which includes gmmktime + user->timezones, as well as changing all date()'s to format_date()'s. As for nodetypes/users, actually, yeah, NHPR.org is interested in those filter functionalities too (and actually wanted them a few weeks ago). Haven't yet addressed the PSQL stuff from Cvbge. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:09:46 +0000 : Morbus Iff I'm not entirely convinced that this should be part of tracker.module - the tracker module is to "track changes" or to "track updates". That's an entire different problem than archived data, which probably hasn't been changed for months or even years. I'd hate to see the tracker view applied to an archive system - I could care less about the titles of a blog post (which are usually piss-poor), especially when most *entire* blog posts are small enough to fit into the teaser that the archive.module shows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 05:45:57 +0000 : Boris Mann Dries, I agree with Morbus. I can see what you're thinking with tracker (I think) -- have it handle read/unread for all sorts of stuff, in which case you'll want all sorts of filters. Archive is the place where all content can be navigated primarily by date. Let's commit this rather than live with the current completely useless archive.module for another entire release cycle. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:45:23 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Dries, I can see your point. The navigation interfce feels odd. But after some time I found this UI to be VERY good. it just feels odd because you are used to a calendar, yet this really is a better interface for browsing dates. It requires less clicks, offers all possible options in one glance etc. If we don't go for this archive module. Then please pretty please, remove at least the other one from core. It is completely useless as Boris states Better that people must use contribs than something that makes us look like we code crappy modules for core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:14:06 +0000 : Kobus It would be very sad indeed if this is not included in 4.7! I will definately replace it on all my local sites though. I understand the concern that the new widget is not as pretty as the old one, but in my opinion it is the "resistance to change" that speaks here. We're so used to think that an archive is square-ish, that this wide rectangle is a bit awkward at first. The gain in usefulness and easier navigation is totally making up for that. It also gives a clearer overview of a time-frame than is currently the case, so all in all, I am +1 for this. Regards, Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:17:51 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal Because I would like to to see this hit trunk as much as you all, I'll volunteer that _after_ this is in, I'll have a look if we can refactor/spice up the default looking of the new archive.module.. So Dries, any other concerns you have left? ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:44:14 +0000 : m3avrck I agree with said points, this module really cleans things up and works so much better. Let's get this in now and we still have a few weeks before 4.7 ships. We can deal with any outstanding bugs then... not that these are really any *new* bugs since they already exist in CVS. Not to mention this also fixes a slew of bugs with the current archive.module, so based on that, I think this one should be included. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:18:05 +0000 : Morbus Iff Very minor changes in this version: slightly different comments and a " to ' conversion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:19:12 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_5.module (11.18 KB) Grr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:02:38 +0000 : Norrin What do I do wrong? I installed the 'archive_5.module' from the post before. But when I call 'http://www.examplesite.com/archive' all I get is a blank page.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Enable customizing of "Title" field on node forms
by killes 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '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: killes(a)www.drop.org -Status: fixed +Status: patch (code needs work) fixing status killes(a)www.drop.org 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). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:20:21 +0000 : Thox Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/title-validation.patch (6.22 KB) attached again (issue preview seems busted?) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:57:26 +0000 : nedjo Thanks chx, killes, and Thox for updates and fixes on the patch. I've applied and tested it and Thox's changes seem to address the title validation issue. It's a couple of releases later--it would be great to see this fix applied! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:17:25 +0000 : matt westgate Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/title-validation_0.patch (6.04 KB) +1 I've needed to change the name of the title field or even altogether hide it for custom modules. Issue preview was working for me. We should document for module developers the implications title-less nodes (e.g., less informative watchdog entries, harder to edit nodes, node title lists become buggy, etc). I couldn't get the patch to apply cleanly to HEAD so here's a new one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:42:30 +0000 : Robrecht Jacques Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/title-validation_1.patch (6.23 KB) +1 I need this too: I want to be able to set the title of a node automatically. Patch still applies with offset (rerolled patch attached). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:59:39 +0000 : fago +1 for this functionality i've tested the patch and it looks nice, however node_validate_title() produces an validation error, where the field is called title, which isn't suitable if the modules changes the name, as the forum.module does. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:50:15 +0000 : Thox Perhaps node_validate_title() should be passed the name of the field? 'Title' by default. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:22:24 +0000 : fago Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/nodetitle-updated.patch (7.05 KB) i've updated node_validate_title() as thox suggested and added a title "question" to the poll.module, as there was no title field for it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:01:17 +0000 : fago Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/nodetitle-updated2.patch (7.13 KB) updated the patch again. now node_validate_title() takes the whole error message as optional second parameter as this allows more customization by modules. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:49:25 +0000 : Dries I'm cool with this patch but don't like node_validate_title(). Can't we simply this function? 3 nested ifs are somewhat hairy. Can we beautify this a little?

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Replace core archive.module w/ codemonkeyx archive.module
by Norrin 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/29676 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/29676 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: archive.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Morbus Iff Reported by: Morbus Iff Updated by: Norrin Status: patch (code needs work) What do I do wrong? I installed the 'archive_5.module' from the post before. But when I call 'http://www.examplesite.com/archive' all I get is a blank page. Norrin Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:08:49 +0000 : Morbus Iff Over at http://drupal.org/node/8287, Berkes mentions that the core archive.module was considered being removed, per a discussion at the Drupal Sprint. Kjartan also mentions he would "love to have the archive module improved in general." In chatting with chx about this, he mentioned codemonkeyx's rewrite sitting in contrib/modules/archive/. I'll be doing some work with the archive.module over the next few days, and will be basing my changes around codemonkeyx's version, and making it compatible with HEAD. This general Issue is to move codemonkeyx's version into HEAD as a replacement to the existing archive.module. An unknown version of his replacement can be seen at http://www.codemonkeyx.net/archive. I'll be running a live HEAD version soon as well. These patches were made during the customization of Drupal by http://www.NHPR.org. In loving support of open source software, http://www.NHPR.org will continue to contribute patches they feel the community will benefit from. Questions about this patch should be directed to morbus(a)disobey.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:45:59 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues_2 (9.56 KB) As an example of a very early revision, see the attached, with the following changes from the current contrib CVS: * removed the year offset from theme_archive_navigation_years, which controlled how many year links to show at once in the top nav. For those with sites with more than five years, they'll WANT people to notice that they have five years, not to have to click on the earliest date and then have their expectations changed. * made the "created > $date" in archive_buildQuery "created >= $date" instead, to allow posts that were created at exactly midnight that day (like me, by design). * since there's no block, I made the menu item visible upon first load. this menu item is given "access content" permissions. More to come, including doxygen and gmt considerations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:47:41 +0000 : Morbus Iff Might as well start getting a review of it so I can fix 'em as they come in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:56:49 +0000 : Tobias Maier cant you provide a patch file? thanks for your work ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:04:01 +0000 : Morbus Iff The codemonkeyx version is a complete rewrite of the core archive.module. If I were to create a patch file against core, every line would be deleted, and every line would be new. Once I finish my revisions to codemonkey's version, I'll post the final version here, as well as a patch against his current CVS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:09:13 +0000 : Tobias Maier ok, thanks again :D ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:41:43 +0000 : Junyor +1 for this change. The archive.module in core is dead. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:14:30 +0000 : adrian What is the progress on this morbus ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:29:13 +0000 : Morbus Iff Adrian - I'll be attaching a new version either later today or tomorrow, with a CHANGELOG. I'll also be running a live version of it over on NHPR.org for people to play with. The three major things I'm worried about right now are a) doxygen, b) variable/function naming, c) GMT considerations. After those, I'll be exploring a patch for my own needs: the ability to get archives for particular term. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:53:34 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive.module (9.93 KB) Here's the latest, with the following changelog: * reordered some routines to be a little more workflowish. * renamed archive_buildQuery to archive_build_query. * general whitespace and formatting cleanup. * HEADish update: returning $output, not page templating it. * removed the reference of &$ad in archive_build_query. * test for the existence of arg(#)'s before validating them. * archive_validSomething changed to archive_valid_something. * removed unused vars: cur_date, cur_date_end. * renamed archive_buildURL to archive_build_url. * removed the HTML whitespace from the theming. * twiddled a lot of quotes and apostraphes. * removed 'future' CSS class. ill-defined. * reordered/renamed the CSS classes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:54:08 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_29676_archive_css.patch (1.56 KB) And the drupal.css patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:56:29 +0000 : Morbus Iff This version of the module is currently running live at http://www.nhpr.org/archive/. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:59:57 +0000 : Tobias Maier if i click for example on 2003 it would be good if this would go to january or december and marks them that this one will be shown now as you can see it if you click on january 2003. it has to select * on the first: the first month of writing * on the last: the last month of writing * on every else: january I hope you can understand what I mean... greets tobias ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:17:40 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_0.module (11.28 KB) Alright. I've attached another new version that adds a new feature that wasn't part of the original codemonkeyx CVS, but was chatted about on the devel list back in April. If this particular feature has bad code or needs heavy refactoring, certainly consider ONLY the version in comment #9 (and the matching drupal.css patch in #10). This new version supports dated archives based on taxonomy tids. It was a quick addition which NHPR.org needed (for the date nav; the normal tid archive pager wasn't strong enough for our needs). Since it was a quick addition, it supports only ONE tid at a time - the 'and/or' syntax for the taxonomy.module was not brought over. If that syntax was desired, it'd make more sense to create some sort of API for archive.module so that other nodes can take advantage of the dated nav in their normal pages (like node types, users, forums, etc.) The added code supports term matches at any granularity: # all node types that match tid 15000 ('The Front Porch') http://www.nhpr.org/archive/term/15000 # all 2005 node types that match tid 20 ('Health') http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2005/term/20 # all March, 2003 node types that match tid 9 ('Education') http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2003/3/term/9 # all July 11, 2003 node types that match tid 49 ('Economy') http://morbus.totalnetnh.net/nhpr/archive/2002/7/11/term/49 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:27:26 +0000 : Tobias Maier what does this mean? "Story Archives of 'archives' " on http://www.nhpr.org/archive/term/15000 should this maybe named? "Archive of 'The Front Porch'" if I go to http://www.nhpr.org/archive/term/20 I can only read "archives"... why is there a difference? - I never tested this module on my test site, because I'm not at home - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:29:34 +0000 : Morbus Iff Tobias: that wouldn't be possible, at least not accurately. The new archive.module supports browsing by year, month, and day, as you know. archive/2005 loads up all the data from a particular year and starts creating a pager out of it. Consider if you have 3 posts in December, and 15 posts in November. It wouldn't be "right" to highlight December because the pager display for the entire year would also include some of November's entries (since 3 is less than the pager increment). Likewise, if we ONLY showed the items from December, then we wouldn't have a "pager by year" feature, only a "pager by month (defaulting to December when none is selected)" feature. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:30:41 +0000 : Morbus Iff Tobias: regarding #14, that's an artifact of the templates that I'm using for NHPR, and has nothing to do with archive.module itself (in fact, once the anonymous cache expires, you'll see that little oopsie go away). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:31:47 +0000 : Tobias Maier I can see your right :) I hope it comes in HEAD before tomorrow :D ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:20:12 +0000 : dtan I apologize if this is already a known issue. http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2005/9 does not create a link for september 1st, even though there are 2 nodes listed (http://www.nhpr.org/archive/2005/9/1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:11:21 +0000 : Morbus Iff dtan: I'm pretty sure I know what this is - I'll address it either later today or tomorrow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:49:58 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_1.module (11.53 KB) Alright, I've attached a new archive.module - this is the version WITH term filtering enabled. I can make one without terms if necessary - otherwise, I'll just work from this one for now. This version fixes the bug that dtan saw, as a well as a bunch of other off-by-one errors. Of primary importance, however, is that all mktime's that mattered have been switched to gmmktime, which was one of the oft-reported Issues with the old archive.module. I want to eyeball them all again and make sure they're right though. The URLs from #13 are still operational and the CSS from #10 is still required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:02:06 +0000 : Morbus Iff In testing with a few people in #drupal, we've discovered a much bigger problem, which affects this rewritten module as well as the current core archive.module. In a nutshell, the node.created time is stored with time(). PHP's time() bases itself on the server time, NOT on GMT. Thus, for archive.module to work correctly, it must ALWAYS use mktime (relative to server time) and never consider the $user->timezone (relative to GMT). For archive.module, this would cause dates to always be considered via server time, which isn't good, but is better than the craziness going on now. Alternatively, we could try to convert server time to GMT first, and then work with that. The proper solution is to fix node.module to use gmmktime without any arguments for node.created, then have an update path that modifies all node .created and .modified values to GMT, not server time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 05:53:51 +0000 : Junyor Since that is also a problem with the old archive.module, I don't see why it should stop this from getting into core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:37:28 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal "Since that is also a problem with the old archive.module, I don't see why it should stop this from getting into core. " Well, I think it's better to only accept the best code rather than accepting bugs getting in core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:05:51 +0000 : Kobus I am with Junyor on this. If this can be fixed, great, but if not, it's not a train smash, as the old one exhibits the same problem. I say add the new archive module, if there are no other ciritical bugs with it. It is much more robust and usable than the old one. We desperately need a new archive module. I couldn't find any other bugs while testing with the links Morbus posted. I don't have a HEAD installation anywhere, so can't test it locally at this moment. Regards, Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:07:49 +0000 : Kobus BTW, code freeze means no new code added, right? Can't this module put in Core as is for the code freeze and the bug sorted out before the official release? Or is that just mean of me to suggest that? Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:13:09 +0000 : Junyor Stefan: The bug is already in core, since node.module is in core. Archive.module (old and new!) just shows that bug. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:20:35 +0000 : Tobias Maier I want to have it in core for 4.7, too!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:25:24 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal Junyor: I know that.. Though I think it's not good to accept code which we are aware of that it has bugs in it.. Offcourse this is very double, because drupal contains (probably) a lot of bugs, only they weren't spotted yet.. But, accepting code which has bugs in unacceptable imo.. For example, the node revisions patch had almost 40 reviews/rewritings from Gerhard and several others before it was accepted to be in core.. If we do not allow bugs to go into core, we don't have to bughunt and fix later which is a good thing.. So, imo we should first sort out the problem, then discuss what the best way is to fix the problem, and after that Squeeze that moron! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:11:06 +0000 : adrian I vote we include this module, and open up a new issue for the bug. It's not archive's fault that this occurs, it is just showing the data it has access to. The bug already exists in core too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:50:59 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_2.module (10.63 KB) Attached is a new, and most likely final, version of the archive.module. I've removed all user->timezone references - all date determinations are based on server time, which is also the time used in the "created" column of the node table. This is "more accurate" than what the core archive.module currently does (which'll always be wrong because it's treating server time as GMT, which isn't always the case). When node.module does start saving times as GMT properly, archive.module will have be to be tweaked with timezones and blah blah blah. I did fiddle around with determining the server offset in an attempt to get to a GMT base, but I didn't have much luck with that. The NHPR.org URLs above are still valid for testing. I need testers and reviewers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:55:16 +0000 : m3avrck I get these two PHP errors when I have *no* content in my Drupal install (just did a clean install to test it): warning: mktime() [<a href='function.mktime'>function.mktime</a>]: Windows does not support negative values for this function in websites\drupal_cvs\drupal\modules\archive.module on line 274. warning: date() [<a href='function.date'>function.date</a>]: Windows does not support dates prior to midnight (00:00:00), January 1, 1970 in websites\drupal_cvs\drupal\modules\archive.module on line 274. Once I add content, these go away. Need some better checks to make sure if there is *no* content you don't get weird errors and what not :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:55:45 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_29676_archive_css_0.patch (1.56 KB) Updated drupal.css patch for HEAD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:26:01 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_3.module (10.75 KB) Attached is the complete module, fixed for m3avrck's #31. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:30:36 +0000 : m3avrck Reviewed patch and further test, running great over here! Definetly +1 for this one! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:03:36 +0000 : Morbus Iff Note: The NHPR folks preferred their archives to be sorted from earliest to latest (SQL ASC vs. DESC) for month/day listings, so no longer use the NHPR.org URLs above as representative of the module itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:26:37 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/drupal.css (10.35 KB) CVS updated for HEAD again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:27:00 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/_p_29676_archive_css_1.patch (1.56 KB) GRRR. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:18:48 +0000 : m3avrck Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_0.patch (20.72 KB) Rerolled patch against head. Also created one patch that fixes both archive.module and drupal.css so it's a clean and simple process now :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:23:55 +0000 : m3avrck Just retested with the latest patch I made, applies cleanly against HEAD and *everything* works great and looks great too. No errors of any kind, even works on PHP 5.0.5 with no call by reference errors, :D Let's get this baby in! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:26:06 +0000 : Souvent22 +1. I like the new patch, makes things easier to patch. Very slick. I like the break down of years, to months, to days. Very nice. Ready to go I say. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:55:56 +0000 : m3avrck Bump to the top, freeze coming soon!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:05:21 +0000 : Cvbge So, pgsql does not have FROM_UNIXTIME nor MONTH functions... I'd prefer, if it is possibile, to change the query to not use this mysql-specific functions, then writing pgsql specific equivalents... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:39:20 +0000 : Dries It might be me, but visually, I like the little calendar block better. Though, this new (slightly ugly) widget is easier to navigate. I'd like to postpone this patch until after 4.7. While nice, I'm not convinced this is the right approach. Like, adding the term-magic to the archive module is more of a hack than anything else. What's next, adding a uid-check so you can filter by user ID? Or a type check so you can filter by node type? Ultimately this should be merged into the tracker module, or better yet, into a generic "query string to node query"-mechanism. (I've outlined this elsewhere in the issues.) There is also a bunch of very minor code issues that need to be looked at. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:06:57 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_4.module (11.18 KB) I've attached an updated version, which includes gmmktime + user->timezones, as well as changing all date()'s to format_date()'s. As for nodetypes/users, actually, yeah, NHPR.org is interested in those filter functionalities too (and actually wanted them a few weeks ago). Haven't yet addressed the PSQL stuff from Cvbge. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:09:46 +0000 : Morbus Iff I'm not entirely convinced that this should be part of tracker.module - the tracker module is to "track changes" or to "track updates". That's an entire different problem than archived data, which probably hasn't been changed for months or even years. I'd hate to see the tracker view applied to an archive system - I could care less about the titles of a blog post (which are usually piss-poor), especially when most *entire* blog posts are small enough to fit into the teaser that the archive.module shows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 05:45:57 +0000 : Boris Mann Dries, I agree with Morbus. I can see what you're thinking with tracker (I think) -- have it handle read/unread for all sorts of stuff, in which case you'll want all sorts of filters. Archive is the place where all content can be navigated primarily by date. Let's commit this rather than live with the current completely useless archive.module for another entire release cycle. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:45:23 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Dries, I can see your point. The navigation interfce feels odd. But after some time I found this UI to be VERY good. it just feels odd because you are used to a calendar, yet this really is a better interface for browsing dates. It requires less clicks, offers all possible options in one glance etc. If we don't go for this archive module. Then please pretty please, remove at least the other one from core. It is completely useless as Boris states Better that people must use contribs than something that makes us look like we code crappy modules for core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:14:06 +0000 : Kobus It would be very sad indeed if this is not included in 4.7! I will definately replace it on all my local sites though. I understand the concern that the new widget is not as pretty as the old one, but in my opinion it is the "resistance to change" that speaks here. We're so used to think that an archive is square-ish, that this wide rectangle is a bit awkward at first. The gain in usefulness and easier navigation is totally making up for that. It also gives a clearer overview of a time-frame than is currently the case, so all in all, I am +1 for this. Regards, Kobus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:17:51 +0000 : stefan nagtegaal Because I would like to to see this hit trunk as much as you all, I'll volunteer that _after_ this is in, I'll have a look if we can refactor/spice up the default looking of the new archive.module.. So Dries, any other concerns you have left? ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:44:14 +0000 : m3avrck I agree with said points, this module really cleans things up and works so much better. Let's get this in now and we still have a few weeks before 4.7 ships. We can deal with any outstanding bugs then... not that these are really any *new* bugs since they already exist in CVS. Not to mention this also fixes a slew of bugs with the current archive.module, so based on that, I think this one should be included. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:18:05 +0000 : Morbus Iff Very minor changes in this version: slightly different comments and a " to ' conversion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:19:12 +0000 : Morbus Iff Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/archive_5.module (11.18 KB) Grr.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Unique roles feature patch
by kubaZygmunt 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/27958 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/27958 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: user.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: kubaZygmunt Updated by: kubaZygmunt Status: patch (code needs review) Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/unique.roles.patch.txt (1.61 KB) I've added code which prevents user from submiting 2 roles with the same name. kubaZygmunt

4 4

[drupal-devel] Docbook XML import?
by Robert Douglass 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '05

I had a vivid hallucination that someone was working on importing Docbook XML as "book" content types. Please tell me that it wasn't a dream :-) Robert

3 2

[drupal-devel] [feature] Separate mail backend
by m3avrck 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/28604 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/28604 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: base system Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: Dries Updated by: m3avrck Status: patch (code needs review) Well first off, just wanted to say I'm currently evaluating this and been sending regular feedback to killes for improvements. So far so good on PHP5 machines :-) But in terms of where should this code go, I think mail.module should be eliminated and those functions should be put in mail.inc which *should* be seperate from common.inc. This way, as Drupal grows and more and more modules depend upon mail functions, they will be in their unqiue spot which can easily be patched and extended instead of rummaging through the common.inc mess ;-) As a result, the mail.module settings should be moved to Admin > Settings with the mail setup there, since the basic Drupal "request new password" etc framework requires mail functionality and having these settings there makes the most sense, usability wise. I think with this setup the code could be organized in the cleanest and most straightforward method and would be an elegant refinement in mail handling for 4.7... no new features, just cleaned up and seperate for other modules to make use of, instead of duplicating code and time. This also has the benefit of bringing in more patches to the Drupal core and how it handles mail and making it rock solid. Just my 2 cents. m3avrck Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:35:37 +0000 : Dries It was suggested that we separate the mail backend from the front-end. We might want to include the mail backend in core as includes/mail.inc. Then, other modules like massmailer, subscriptions, notify, pm (private messages), project (project issues), contact, etc. could reuse this component. The mail.inc file would implement some kind of mail queue functionality, and modules just add a mail to the mail queue using a simple /mail API/. In future, the mail backend could deal with bounces and report back proper status codes. Moreover, mail.inc would be pluggable so it could be replaced by a more powerful one, or one that is build specifically for the underlying mail transport (SMTP server). Furthermore, this would solve issues with how many mails get send within a specified interval. Like, when more than one module sends out e-mails it is hard to enforce limitations/restrictions imposed by the hosting company. I'm posting this here so you can keep this in mind when working on simplenews, and to solicit for feedback. Chances are we'll setup an IRC meeting to discuss this further. Details to follow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:15:16 +0000 : Amazon A good place to start would be to look at existing Mail API's Pear Mail: http://pear.php.net/package/Mail Pear Mail tutorial: http://www.zend.com/pear/tutorials/Mail.php#Heading2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:21:57 +0000 : walkah um. +1 and then some. I think this is good... and some good references from Amazon. I'll throw in one other : http://phpmailer.sf.net/ - has great mime handling (i've run into issues with PEAR::Mail's mime handilng in the past, but that was around 2 years ago, and things may have gotten better since then). Oh - and you don't mention it - but support for multipart / mime messages would be lovely :) I'd be interested in / happy to sit in on any IRC discussion as well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:40:34 +0000 : robertDouglass phpmailer++ I've used it and like how easy it is to send both text and html mail. Did I say html mail? You bet! It's time that we had the option. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 11 Aug 2005 05:47:01 +0000 : cyberchucktx I'm definitely interested. Hopefully by adding a post to this I'll get notified on new postings (?) If not I may miss the IRC .. I've been doing a lot of work with safe_mode PHPLIST (have posted to the drupal site somewhee, can dig out the reference if anyone is interested). Charlie in TX ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:42:34 +0000 : Dries It was suggested that mail.inc also provides a HTML to text services. Lots of modules (newsletter, notify, project) try converting HTML to text. Having a reusable function makes sense, and will lead to better conversion routines. XSLT anyone? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:31:27 +0000 : Grugnog2 +1 for phpmailer I found it very easy to use - and most importantly for me - it supports SMTP authentication. As many ISP's will not let you send mail without using SMTP-auth nowadays it may be worth this feature is incorporated into the mail.inc API. - Grug ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:08:43 +0000 : Robert Castelo For about a year now I've been working on an email newsletter and announcement module [1]. There's a version in my sandbox commited about 2 months ago which works fairly well. Dan Robinson and Varr Willis at CivicActions, Moshe Weitzman plus a few others have been testing it, and I've had lots of positive feedback and feature and bug reports from them. A few months ago a realised that there's not much point in putting so much effort into creating all this functionality, only for it to be locked away in my module. Better to Better to create discreet component modules which provide a particular service, such as bounced email handling, but which can be used by any other module that also needs that service. For the last two months I've been working to split functionality into component services modules and make these services available to all modules. One of the biggest challenges was to make these component modules independent of each other. The only area where I haven't managed this is some of the database calls - but thanks to a chat with chx I realised that db_rewrite_sql could be used to handle this very nicely. This is what I have: * bounced_email.module - process bounced emails * html2text.module - convert HTML to plain text equivalent (e.g. list item becomes "* item") * identity_hash.module - manages full and partial loggin based on hash which can be used in email links * publication.module - defines and packages content of publication, which could be any kind of publication * schedule.module - defines and manages schedules, e.g. email sending schedule * subscribed.module - manages subscriptions to publications * templates.module - manage and define templates What's great is that the component modules are not limited to email, they could be used to quickly create RSS newsletters, PDF newsletters, text message newsletters, or even personalised/filtered website sections. I haven't made the new component modules available anywhere yet, but I'll be happy to upload them to contrib and let others get involved. What would be the best way to commit them - as a single directory? or each component module in it's own directory? [1] http://www.cortextcommunications.com/development/newsletter/features ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:05:18 +0000 : vwX Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/mailqueue.tar.gz (3.71 KB) This is a very basic mail queue system I would like to contribute. There are some changes to other modules that will have to be made such as changing user.module to use this instead of directly calling the php mail function and moving mime_header_encoding to mail.inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:25:11 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Note: I am moving this to the main project. VwX: What I see looks very nice for a start. Some polishing is certainly needed, but I'd like to try this. If I only had the time... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:10:19 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Ok, I've been doing some clean-up on this one and made contact.module use it. The module and the .inc file work. I've put the files into my sandbox for now. I plan to work on them over the weekend (unless Dries tells me they are too late for 4.7). http://cvs.drupal.org/viewcvs/drupal/contributions/sandbox/killes/mail/ But I could use some input: - the sql file defines a column to store the module that generated the mail. Do we want this? If yes, we need to fix it. - Do we need a throttle for only sending x mails per cron run? - can somebody try the files with php5? - what else do we need? Please give input, links and what not. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:34:04 +0000 : Dries Some of my comments might be false. If so, sorry. I only looked at it for 5 minutes: * I wonder why we need per-module settings. I can't think of concrete use cases. * For consistency, mailid needs to be mid. * I don't see an option to send mails immediately? * I don't see any "messages per hour" accounting? * I don't understand why mail.inc should be node system aware? * mailid = '%s' should be mailid = %d. * Incorrect use of t(): don't translate user input. * The coding style needs work; inconsistent variable names, inconsistent spacing, etc. * Some PHPDoc is rather cryptic: /Updates table mail queue address table sets sent flag to 1 for a queued msg./. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:28:11 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org I've fixed a number of things. needs testing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 19 Sep 2005 02:28:25 +0000 : killes(a)www.drop.org Ok, changed and tested. Some more changes, taken some concepts from massmailer.module. Included hacked copies of simplenews and contact module for testing purposes. We need to discuss if this should be a module or a part od system.module. depending on the outcome we need to put the functions in mail.module and mail.inc into different files. Testers welcome. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:31:04 +0000 : Peter Apockotos Dries, Are you talking about something like I request here http://drupal.org/node/28079 ?

1 0