- Development - lists.drupal.org

[drupal-devel] taxonomy rewrite
by Karoly Negyesi 12 Apr '05

12 Apr '05

Hi! I feel the urge to rewrite the taxonomy module for 4.7 Comments are welcome. NK

6 5

[drupal-devel] [bug] User info should not be visible without permission
by Dries 12 Apr '05

12 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/4166 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: user system Category: bug reports -Priority: normal +Priority: critical Assigned to: killes(a)www.drop.org Reported by: mic Updated by: Dries Status: patch Also, people can't update their own profile information with this patch. Marking this critical. Dries Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 17, 2003 - 07:23 : mic When anonymous visitors do not have "Access userlist" permission, they can still view all the public info in user profiles. Drupal sites that are created for a group of friends or for an organization want to protect their e-mail addresses, telephone numbers and so on, while making these accessible to fellow members. This could be a critical feature request, but since I think it's an error, I'm sending you this as bug. (I don't have CVS, so I'm hoping someone else will make the simple correction needed to the user module) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2004 - 06:41 : daBrado Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-module-add-view-permission.patch (1.54 KB) I made a patch that fixed this by adding a new permission, "access users". This is everything this patch does: Add new permission, "access users" If a user does not have the "access users" permission, s/he cannot read another user's profile at all, and instead gets an "access denied" page. I hope I did this in the proper way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 21, 2004 - 21:25 : Dries I think we should not introduce a new permission but merge with the existing 'access user list' permission (or rename it to 'access users'). Marking this "won't fix" until the patch has been udpated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 28, 2004 - 03:26 : daBrado Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-module-add-view-permission_0.patch (1.88 KB) Another patch, this time renaming the permission "access user list" to "access users", and adding a check in the user viewing function to only allow users with this permission to view the user information. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 5, 2004 - 16:31 : Anonymous Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-module-add-view-permission_1.patch (1.86 KB) Here is a patch again, now for CVS. Does the same thing as above. It is a very simple patch. If it seems proper, I hope that can be included before it goes stale. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 9, 2004 - 03:08 : daBrado Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-module-add-view-permission_2.patch (1.33 KB) The previous patch was accepted, but then for some reason reversed as part of another CVS commit. So, here is a new patch that brings back the "access users" permission. It controls whether or not a user may view other users info. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 22, 2004 - 17:53 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/access_users_perm.patch (6.46 KB) A new and revised patch. It adds an "access users" permission ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 22, 2004 - 19:02 : killes(a)www.drop.org I'd like to see this patch applied to cvs before the 4.5 release. Now that we can protect our nodes from unauthorized access it just makes sense to protect our user data as well. In the future I'd like to see scheme where the user (as in end-user) is able to selet which of his data gets published. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 23, 2004 - 02:52 : rkendall I would like this too ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 15, 2004 - 00:46 : drumm Can the name be changed to 'view user profiles'? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 18, 2004 - 10:19 : Bèr Kessels It can, but I used "access" for consistancy. we have "access newsfeeds", "access comments", "access etc". This patch is critical for corporate sites btw. A corporate site that has its customers information lying on the streets (so to say) is not-done. Ber ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 27, 2004 - 14:49 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-access.patch (5.96 KB) Updated for CVS. I assumed that "admin users" implies "access users" in user_admin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 1, 2005 - 18:30 : killes(a)www.drop.org Does not apply anymore, Ber can you have a look at it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 7, 2005 - 10:19 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user_access_0.patch (9.74 KB) New patch. Should apply to HEAD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 7, 2005 - 22:29 : killes(a)www.drop.org It's a patch (which still applies and wants into core). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 19:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user_access_bug_1.patch (11.45 KB) Ok, updated patch. Includes changes to format_name to only display unlinked username for non-privileddged users. 'acccess users' is now 'access user profiles'. The search users tab won't get displayed either if you are not allowed to seee user profiles. The patch got even tested. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 19:19 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user_access_bug_2.patch (11.26 KB) Further testing revealed a bug in the older parts of the patch... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 21:02 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user_access_bug_3.patch (11.35 KB) Another iteration: Users should alwys be allowed to see their own user page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 12, 2005 - 00:49 : Steven Committed to 4.6/HEAD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 12, 2005 - 01:04 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-db.patch (2.56 KB) We found that users should not wonder why they cannot see other users' pages anymore. DB update required. Patch for HEAD attached, 4.6 to follow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 12, 2005 - 01:11 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-db_0.patch (2.45 KB) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 12, 2005 - 06:25 : Anonymous Won't the way the upgrade numbers don't match up between 4.6 and HEAD eventually cause problems for 4.6 users that upgrade to 4.7? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 12, 2005 - 07:20 : Dries Where the access checks for the blocks required?

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Missing <div> container on HTML output
by stefan nagtegaal 12 Apr '05

12 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/20079 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: book.module Category: bug reports Priority: minor Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: budda Updated by: stefan nagtegaal Status: patch Why don't we remove the menu-<div>?? We can style it using .block-user etc, right? Stefan. stefan nagtegaal Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 6, 2005 - 19:46 : budda Line 588 should be made to output the tree navigation within a container the same as the core navigation block - to keep consistent. new line 588: return '<div class="menu"><ul>'. $tree .'</ul></div>'; You are still able to format the book tree navigation different to the core navigation block as this tree is a child of css class 'book-block'. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 6, 2005 - 19:48 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/book_28.patch (558 bytes) Here's the patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 6, 2005 - 21:34 : Dries Where does Drupal core emit a class="menu" ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 6, 2005 - 21:43 : jhriggs Line 89 of menu.module in menu_block(): $data['content'] = '<div class="menu">'. theme('menu_tree', $delta) .'</div>' ; Should the change maybe be made to theme_menu_tree() instead to take care of all of them at once? And if so, should the class be called "tree" rather than "menu"? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 7, 2005 - 11:26 : budda Class "tree" would be good. But would this change break any existing themes? Also - the tree menu is used within the book pages at the footer to show nested pages - so would you want that to be within the same class?

4 3

[drupal-devel] [bug] User info should not be visible without permission
by Dries 12 Apr '05

12 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/4166 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: user system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: killes(a)www.drop.org Reported by: mic Updated by: Dries Status: patch Where the access checks for the blocks required? Dries Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 17, 2003 - 07:23 : mic When anonymous visitors do not have "Access userlist" permission, they can still view all the public info in user profiles. Drupal sites that are created for a group of friends or for an organization want to protect their e-mail addresses, telephone numbers and so on, while making these accessible to fellow members. This could be a critical feature request, but since I think it's an error, I'm sending you this as bug. (I don't have CVS, so I'm hoping someone else will make the simple correction needed to the user module) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2004 - 06:41 : daBrado Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-module-add-view-permission.patch (1.54 KB) I made a patch that fixed this by adding a new permission, "access users". This is everything this patch does: Add new permission, "access users" If a user does not have the "access users" permission, s/he cannot read another user's profile at all, and instead gets an "access denied" page. I hope I did this in the proper way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 21, 2004 - 21:25 : Dries I think we should not introduce a new permission but merge with the existing 'access user list' permission (or rename it to 'access users'). Marking this "won't fix" until the patch has been udpated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 28, 2004 - 03:26 : daBrado Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-module-add-view-permission_0.patch (1.88 KB) Another patch, this time renaming the permission "access user list" to "access users", and adding a check in the user viewing function to only allow users with this permission to view the user information. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 5, 2004 - 16:31 : Anonymous Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-module-add-view-permission_1.patch (1.86 KB) Here is a patch again, now for CVS. Does the same thing as above. It is a very simple patch. If it seems proper, I hope that can be included before it goes stale. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 9, 2004 - 03:08 : daBrado Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-module-add-view-permission_2.patch (1.33 KB) The previous patch was accepted, but then for some reason reversed as part of another CVS commit. So, here is a new patch that brings back the "access users" permission. It controls whether or not a user may view other users info. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 22, 2004 - 17:53 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/access_users_perm.patch (6.46 KB) A new and revised patch. It adds an "access users" permission ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 22, 2004 - 19:02 : killes(a)www.drop.org I'd like to see this patch applied to cvs before the 4.5 release. Now that we can protect our nodes from unauthorized access it just makes sense to protect our user data as well. In the future I'd like to see scheme where the user (as in end-user) is able to selet which of his data gets published. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 23, 2004 - 02:52 : rkendall I would like this too ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 15, 2004 - 00:46 : drumm Can the name be changed to 'view user profiles'? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 18, 2004 - 10:19 : Bèr Kessels It can, but I used "access" for consistancy. we have "access newsfeeds", "access comments", "access etc". This patch is critical for corporate sites btw. A corporate site that has its customers information lying on the streets (so to say) is not-done. Ber ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 27, 2004 - 14:49 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-access.patch (5.96 KB) Updated for CVS. I assumed that "admin users" implies "access users" in user_admin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 1, 2005 - 18:30 : killes(a)www.drop.org Does not apply anymore, Ber can you have a look at it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 7, 2005 - 10:19 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user_access_0.patch (9.74 KB) New patch. Should apply to HEAD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 7, 2005 - 22:29 : killes(a)www.drop.org It's a patch (which still applies and wants into core). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 19:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user_access_bug_1.patch (11.45 KB) Ok, updated patch. Includes changes to format_name to only display unlinked username for non-privileddged users. 'acccess users' is now 'access user profiles'. The search users tab won't get displayed either if you are not allowed to seee user profiles. The patch got even tested. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 19:19 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user_access_bug_2.patch (11.26 KB) Further testing revealed a bug in the older parts of the patch... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 21:02 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user_access_bug_3.patch (11.35 KB) Another iteration: Users should alwys be allowed to see their own user page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 12, 2005 - 00:49 : Steven Committed to 4.6/HEAD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 12, 2005 - 01:04 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-db.patch (2.56 KB) We found that users should not wonder why they cannot see other users' pages anymore. DB update required. Patch for HEAD attached, 4.6 to follow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 12, 2005 - 01:11 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-db_0.patch (2.45 KB) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 12, 2005 - 06:25 : Anonymous Won't the way the upgrade numbers don't match up between 4.6 and HEAD eventually cause problems for 4.6 users that upgrade to 4.7?

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] User info should not be visible without permission
by Anonymous 12 Apr '05

12 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/4166 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: user system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: killes(a)www.drop.org Reported by: mic Updated by: Anonymous Status: patch Won't the way the upgrade numbers don't match up between 4.6 and HEAD eventually cause problems for 4.6 users that upgrade to 4.7? Anonymous Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 17, 2003 - 05:23 : mic When anonymous visitors do not have "Access userlist" permission, they can still view all the public info in user profiles. Drupal sites that are created for a group of friends or for an organization want to protect their e-mail addresses, telephone numbers and so on, while making these accessible to fellow members. This could be a critical feature request, but since I think it's an error, I'm sending you this as bug. (I don't have CVS, so I'm hoping someone else will make the simple correction needed to the user module) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2004 - 04:41 : daBrado Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-module-add-view-permission.patch (1.54 KB) I made a patch that fixed this by adding a new permission, "access users". This is everything this patch does: Add new permission, "access users" If a user does not have the "access users" permission, s/he cannot read another user's profile at all, and instead gets an "access denied" page. I hope I did this in the proper way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 21, 2004 - 19:25 : Dries I think we should not introduce a new permission but merge with the existing 'access user list' permission (or rename it to 'access users'). Marking this "won't fix" until the patch has been udpated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 28, 2004 - 01:26 : daBrado Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-module-add-view-permission_0.patch (1.88 KB) Another patch, this time renaming the permission "access user list" to "access users", and adding a check in the user viewing function to only allow users with this permission to view the user information. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 5, 2004 - 14:31 : Anonymous Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-module-add-view-permission_1.patch (1.86 KB) Here is a patch again, now for CVS. Does the same thing as above. It is a very simple patch. If it seems proper, I hope that can be included before it goes stale. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 9, 2004 - 01:08 : daBrado Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-module-add-view-permission_2.patch (1.33 KB) The previous patch was accepted, but then for some reason reversed as part of another CVS commit. So, here is a new patch that brings back the "access users" permission. It controls whether or not a user may view other users info. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 22, 2004 - 15:53 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/access_users_perm.patch (6.46 KB) A new and revised patch. It adds an "access users" permission ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 22, 2004 - 17:02 : killes(a)www.drop.org I'd like to see this patch applied to cvs before the 4.5 release. Now that we can protect our nodes from unauthorized access it just makes sense to protect our user data as well. In the future I'd like to see scheme where the user (as in end-user) is able to selet which of his data gets published. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 23, 2004 - 00:52 : rkendall I would like this too ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 14, 2004 - 22:46 : drumm Can the name be changed to 'view user profiles'? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 18, 2004 - 08:19 : Bèr Kessels It can, but I used "access" for consistancy. we have "access newsfeeds", "access comments", "access etc". This patch is critical for corporate sites btw. A corporate site that has its customers information lying on the streets (so to say) is not-done. Ber ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 27, 2004 - 12:49 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-access.patch (5.96 KB) Updated for CVS. I assumed that "admin users" implies "access users" in user_admin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 1, 2005 - 16:30 : killes(a)www.drop.org Does not apply anymore, Ber can you have a look at it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 7, 2005 - 08:19 : Bèr Kessels Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user_access_0.patch (9.74 KB) New patch. Should apply to HEAD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 7, 2005 - 20:29 : killes(a)www.drop.org It's a patch (which still applies and wants into core). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 17:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user_access_bug_1.patch (11.45 KB) Ok, updated patch. Includes changes to format_name to only display unlinked username for non-privileddged users. 'acccess users' is now 'access user profiles'. The search users tab won't get displayed either if you are not allowed to seee user profiles. The patch got even tested. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 17:19 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user_access_bug_2.patch (11.26 KB) Further testing revealed a bug in the older parts of the patch... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 19:02 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user_access_bug_3.patch (11.35 KB) Another iteration: Users should alwys be allowed to see their own user page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 22:49 : Steven Committed to 4.6/HEAD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 23:04 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-db.patch (2.56 KB) We found that users should not wonder why they cannot see other users' pages anymore. DB update required. Patch for HEAD attached, 4.6 to follow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 11, 2005 - 23:11 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-db_0.patch (2.45 KB)

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] drop.org is down
by killes 12 Apr '05

12 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/20349 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: user.module Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: killes(a)www.drop.org Updated by: killes(a)www.drop.org Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/user-drop.org-is-down.patch (3.06 KB) drop.org is down and I don't think it will get much attention soon. I've replaced drop.org by drupal.org in the mailed messages. killes(a)www.drop.org

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Alternative caching for high traffic websites
by Jeremy 12 Apr '05

12 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/19298 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: base system Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Jeremy(a)kerneltrap.org Reported by: Jeremy(a)kerneltrap.org Updated by: Jeremy(a)kerneltrap.org Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/database.mysql_1.patch (382 bytes) Drupal's existing caching mechanism doesn't perform well on highly dynamic websites in which the cache is flushed frequently. One example is a site that is under attack by a spambot that is posting spam comments every few seconds, causing all cached pages to be flushed every few seconds. The attached patches provide the following cache methods: 1) CACHE_DISABLED: no caching. This is unchanged from before. 2) CACHE_ENABLED_STRICT: This is Drupal's existing caching method, in which the cache is flushed immediately whenever it contains invalid data. 3) CACHE_ENABLED_LOOSE: This is the new caching method (feel free to suggest a better name, this is the best I could come up with tonight). Essentially, it immediately flushes the cache only for specific users who have modified cached data (whether or not they are logged in), delaying the flushing of data for other users by several minutes. This feature requires a new 'cache' field in the sessions table to track the cache status for each user, whether or not they are logged in. A one line change to the system.module updates the cache configuration settings to include an additional option for loose caching. The rest of the changes are in bootstrap.inc, as follows: - cache_clear_all: if strict caching is enabled, nothing is changed. If loose caching is enabled, we delay the flushing of the entire cache for 5 minutes. Instead, we update this user's cache field in the sessions table so we know any cache pages created before the current time are no longer valid for this user. We only set the global "cache_flush" variable if it's not already set. If the global "cache_flush" variable was set more than 5 minutes ago, we flush all cache pages that were expired when the "cache_flush" variable was set. - cache_get: if strict caching is enabled, nothing is changed. If loose caching is enabled, we first check the global "cache_flush" variable and if older than 5 minutes we do a garbage collection call to cache_clear_all. Next, we see if there is a valid cache entry for us. If the cache entry is older than our session table's "cache" field, we don't use it. This will cause the cache to be regenerated by the current user, and ultimately updated for all users. Attached is the patch to database.mysql. To add manually, execute the following: ALTER TABLE sessions ADD cache int(11) NOT NULL default '0' AFTER timestamp; Jeremy(a)kerneltrap.org

9 27

[drupal-devel] [bug] Blocks with no title kill Drupal
by Robin Monks 12 Apr '05

12 Apr '05

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

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] conf_init should strip out port numbers in bootstrap.inc
by chx 12 Apr '05

12 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/19934 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: base system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: chx Reported by: bwooster47 Updated by: chx Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/conf_init_ports_0.patch (1.35 KB) chx Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 4, 2005 - 00:07 : bwooster47 The latest Drupal from CVS (4.6.0) offers multisite configuration files, but currently the conf_init function in includes/bootstrap.inc will also include the :portnum URL specification in the directory name, which does not seem right (and the colon character may cause problems on Mac/Windows). Snippet from bootstrap.inc: * Example for a fictitious site installed at * http://www.drupal.org/mysite/test/ the 'settings.php' is * searched in the following directories: ..... If the site is: http://www.drupal.org:8080/mysite/test/ the same list of directories should be searched as listed in the example in the file, and the :8080 should not be added to the directory name (I think...) I don't know enough PHP to submit a patch, but this is probably easy for those who know this stuff :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 08:08 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/conf_init_ports.patch (768 bytes) Here you are. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 12:16 : Dries Won't commit. Removing the port seems like a bad idea (I could have two drupal sites at two different ports but otherwise identical URLs) and adding regex' all over the map isn't advised. If ":" is an invalid character, then there might be more such characters. I suggest we replace them with '.' and that we document this behavior much like we do with $db_url.

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] form_checkboxes saves "no selection" as string
by chx 12 Apr '05

12 Apr '05

Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/18663 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: base system Category: bug reports Priority: critical Assigned to: chx Reported by: killes(a)www.drop.org Updated by: chx Status: patch Dries? chx Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 10, 2005 - 02:51 : killes(a)www.drop.org If you select nothing from a set of checkboxes an empty string is save to the variables table. This is a problem if the calling code assumes, it would get an array. We should make it save an empty array. The problem is the form_hidden field that we add. even if we replace form_hidden($name, 0) by form_hidden($name, array()) it isn't going to work, because the empty array is eaten by htmlspecialchars. redLED found this bug and he does not like it: 02:53 < redLED> i just like things saying 'CRITICAL' in red 02:53 < redLED> it gives this warm impending doom feeling 02:53 < redLED> and is generally associated with nuclear reactors in people's subconsciousness Suggestions welcome. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 12, 2005 - 19:47 : Steven There is no way to fix it in form_checkboxes() itself afaik, because even without htmlspecialchars, it would still come out as "Array". You can only create arrays indirectly through form submissions, by naming your values "foo[]". But you can not create empty arrays this way. So it is really up to the module which uses form_checkboxes() to handle this. A simple is_array() should do the trick. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 28, 2005 - 17:27 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/checkboxes.patch (1.71 KB) system_settings_save can not really cope with this situation. This makes a problem with empty node options. And the fact that we have a check everywhere we use form_checkboxes is error prone, too. Here is a patch. If this accepted I'll comb the core for dead code. For eg. the first three lines of taxonomy_save_vocabulary and so. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 28, 2005 - 17:32 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/checkboxes_0.patch (1.71 KB) Oh NO! One strayed space! I fixed it before steven beheads me.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 28, 2005 - 18:36 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/checkboxes_1.patch (1.64 KB) Among other changes, I have moved the hidden field form_checkboxes[] out of $edit. I have included HTML code, yes, but this is a very special thing, so it does not merit changing form_input just 'cos of this. And you won't need to theme a hidden field... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ April 8, 2005 - 08:19 : chx Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/form_checkboxes_2.patch (1.9 KB) killes did not like the previous version.

1 0