- Development - lists.drupal.org

[drupal-devel] [task] Make posting permission more granular.
by Steven 05 Feb '05

05 Feb '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: comment.module Category: tasks Priority: normal Assigned to: killes(a)www.drop.org Reported by: killes(a)www.drop.org Updated by: Steven Status: patch Is this patch still needed? Doesn't it tie comment.module unnecessarily into node.module? Steven Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 29, 2004 - 07:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node-access-comment.patch (5 KB) There have been requests to private forums. I think the most straightforward way to allow them is by extending the node_access hook. The attached patch tries this. It assumes that my node object caching patch got committed. Afterwards loading a node twice won't be a performance issue anymore. The patch is untested, I'd like to get feedback on the implementation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 31, 2004 - 17:53 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node-access-comment_0.patch (5.02 KB) The patch is now tested. I think this needs a better explanations: The patch isn't only for forums (which still need some kind of taxonomy permissions) but applies to all nodes. You can set individual nodes to be commentable through the _access hook. This would be helpfull for a forum where only a selected role should be allowed to post, but others should read the announcements. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 4, 2004 - 09:57 : killes(a)www.drop.org The patch has a small problem: We need either to move this check <?php if ($op == 'comment' && $node->comment == 2 && user_access('post comments')) { return TRUE; } ?> before the db query (and thus taking away a bit of the power from that patch) or add a grant_comment column to the node_access table: alter table node_access add grant_comment tinyint(1) unsigned NOT NULL default '0'; ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 5, 2004 - 11:42 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/node-access-comment_0_0.patch (4.78 KB) Keeping up with CVS. I'd like to receive some feedback on the resolution of the problme mentioned above. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 13, 2004 - 03:25 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/module_0.patch (7.1 KB) Keeping up with cvs. Node modules should implement _access('comment'). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 14, 2004 - 07:38 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/commentable.patch (7.89 KB) Had forgotten blog.module -- View: http://drupal.org/node/10426 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/10426

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] generalizing node_rewrite_sql
by chx 05 Feb '05

05 Feb '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: database system Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: chx Reported by: chx Updated by: chx Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/db_rewrite_sql.patch (7.66 KB) As I was thinking on the various usages of node_rewrite_sql , it came to my mind that with very little changes it can be generalized so that any queries against any table -- not just node -- can be rewritten. I have moved node_rewrite_sql to database.inc, renamed it db_rewrite_sql, introduced another necessary parameter, which does not affect the current (light) usage of node_rewrite_sql. I think the usage is even clearer now, 'cos I think nid_alias caused some confusion. Now it is called $primary_table , while the new parameter is called $primary_key. What this would be good for? One may want to have permission and languages for taxonomy terms and vocabularies. chx -- View: http://drupal.org/node/16111 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/16111

7 19

[drupal-devel] [feature] RSS Feeds behind Firewall
by Anonymous 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

Project: Drupal Version: 4.5.2 Component: base system Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: jhefmv24 Updated by: Anonymous Status: patch Here's the error I get... warning: fsockopen(): unable to connect to :8080 in ....\includes\common.inc on line 228. Anonymous Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 19, 2004 - 05:01 : jhefmv24 Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common.inc (37.11 KB) I think the RSS feeds don't work if there is proxy server running. The request/connection is somehow being blocked. The connection should be made first to the proxy and once it is established, then request can made. I think the core function drupal_http_request() under /includes/common.inc doesn't support this. One workaround is change the code from: <?php switch ($uri['scheme']) { case 'http': //$fp = @fsockopen($uri['host'], ($uri['port'] ? $uri['port'] : 80), $errno, $errstr, 15); ?> into: <?php //use proxy settings $fp = @fsockopen('proxy2', '8080'); ?> And then create the request by change from: <?php $request = "$method $path HTTP/1.0\r\n"; ?> Into: <?php $request = "$method ".$uri['scheme']."://".$uri['host'].$path." HTTP/1.1\r\n"; ?> And comment out the lines: <?php $request .= implode("\r\n", $defaults); ?> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 1, 2005 - 23:38 : Anonymous Did this ever get taken care of in 4.5.2. I can't seem to get any feed to work from behind a firewall. Getting error.... Failed to parse RSS feed Microsoft Security Info: 10060 A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.. At home this same feed works fine, so I know it's not the feed. Thanks, SlackNet ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 04:24 : jhefmv24 Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common.inc_4.patch (1.37 KB) +1 on having a facility to modify proxy settings... here's a patch of /includes/common.inc for drupal-4.4.2 version ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 04:25 : jhefmv24 Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/system.module_2.patch (956 bytes) +1 on having a facility to modify proxy settings... here's a patch of /modules/system.module for drupal-4.4.2 version ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 04:31 : jhefmv24 Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common.inc_5.patch (1.35 KB) patch for /includes/common.inc 4.5.2 version to facilitate rss feeds behind firewall ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 04:32 : jhefmv24 Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/system.module_3.patch (1.03 KB) patch of /modules/system.module 4.5.2 version to set proxy settings ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 08:23 : Bèr Kessels hi, tso small issues. one is described at: http://drupal.org/node/9706 The other is that the code is not "drupal compliant". Drupal developrs are (luckily) very picky about spaces, indentation, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 08:51 : jhefmv24 Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common.inc_6.patch (1.37 KB) i forgot to remove my hardcoded proxy name.. sorry Ber, which is not drupal compliant? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 21:22 : Anonymous Is there any way to hardcode my proxy server name? I can't seem to get the patches to work. I just get a blank page after I try to update the news feeds. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/7881 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/7881

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] RSS Feeds behind Firewall
by Anonymous 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

Project: Drupal Version: 4.5.2 Component: base system Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: jhefmv24 Updated by: Anonymous Status: patch Is there any way to hardcode my proxy server name? I can't seem to get the patches to work. I just get a blank page after I try to update the news feeds. Anonymous Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 19, 2004 - 05:01 : jhefmv24 Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common.inc (37.11 KB) I think the RSS feeds don't work if there is proxy server running. The request/connection is somehow being blocked. The connection should be made first to the proxy and once it is established, then request can made. I think the core function drupal_http_request() under /includes/common.inc doesn't support this. One workaround is change the code from: <?php switch ($uri['scheme']) { case 'http': //$fp = @fsockopen($uri['host'], ($uri['port'] ? $uri['port'] : 80), $errno, $errstr, 15); ?> into: <?php //use proxy settings $fp = @fsockopen('proxy2', '8080'); ?> And then create the request by change from: <?php $request = "$method $path HTTP/1.0\r\n"; ?> Into: <?php $request = "$method ".$uri['scheme']."://".$uri['host'].$path." HTTP/1.1\r\n"; ?> And comment out the lines: <?php $request .= implode("\r\n", $defaults); ?> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 1, 2005 - 23:38 : Anonymous Did this ever get taken care of in 4.5.2. I can't seem to get any feed to work from behind a firewall. Getting error.... Failed to parse RSS feed Microsoft Security Info: 10060 A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.. At home this same feed works fine, so I know it's not the feed. Thanks, SlackNet ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 04:24 : jhefmv24 Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common.inc_4.patch (1.37 KB) +1 on having a facility to modify proxy settings... here's a patch of /includes/common.inc for drupal-4.4.2 version ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 04:25 : jhefmv24 Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/system.module_2.patch (956 bytes) +1 on having a facility to modify proxy settings... here's a patch of /modules/system.module for drupal-4.4.2 version ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 04:31 : jhefmv24 Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common.inc_5.patch (1.35 KB) patch for /includes/common.inc 4.5.2 version to facilitate rss feeds behind firewall ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 04:32 : jhefmv24 Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/system.module_3.patch (1.03 KB) patch of /modules/system.module 4.5.2 version to set proxy settings ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 08:23 : Bèr Kessels hi, tso small issues. one is described at: http://drupal.org/node/9706 The other is that the code is not "drupal compliant". Drupal developrs are (luckily) very picky about spaces, indentation, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 08:51 : jhefmv24 Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/common.inc_6.patch (1.37 KB) i forgot to remove my hardcoded proxy name.. sorry Ber, which is not drupal compliant? -- View: http://drupal.org/node/7881 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/7881

1 0

[drupal-devel] [task] Put revisions in their own table
by killes 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system Category: tasks Priority: normal Assigned to: killes(a)www.drop.org Reported by: killes(a)www.drop.org Updated by: killes(a)www.drop.org Status: patch @dmjossel: thanks. @all. The strange problem I reported was apparently php 5 related. After applying Steven's php 5 patch it went away. One error is remaining: If I create a new forum topic it will be shown as part of the book on preview. Hmm, that was due to a db that got corrupted during testing so that is fixed too. Please poke around at the test site and look if you find more errors. killes(a)www.drop.org Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 17:25 : killes(a)www.drop.org Currently all node revisions are stored in a serialized field in node.table and retrieved for _each_ page view although they are rarely needed. However, we have agreed that serializing data is bad and that we should try to keep the memory foot print pf Drupal small. Therefore I propose to create a separate revisions table which would be in principle identical to the node table, only that it could have several old copies of the same node. Extra data added by other modules could be added in a serialized field unless we find a better solution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 18:06 : jhriggs I too think the serialized approach is less than desirable, but here's an alternative. This would likely take some considerable rework in core and contrib, but the following is how we handle similar types of situations in our databases at work. It is more elegant that a separate table, and avoids the (almost exact) duplication of a table. Instead of separate tables, keep all revisions of nodes in the node table as follows: * add field: active (0/1 or Y/N) * add field: revision * every revision of a node is stored in the node table; however, only one revision can be active at any given time * nid can no longer be unique -- primary/unique key becomes (nid, active) * any time a node is loaded, updated (without revision), etc., the active version is used. Thoughts? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 18:57 : killes(a)www.drop.org I am not opposed to your scheme, but I want to stress the following: * Duplicating a table's structure is not bad (IMHO) as long as the content is different. * having two tables will allow us to have a rather small node table. This is (maybe) a performance gain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 19:37 : jhriggs I don't necessarily think that duplicating a table's structure is _bad_. It just seems to be wasteful and a pain to maintain. (Every change to the node table is made twice...easy to do, but also easy to miss perhaps.) As for performance, as long as nid and the active indicator are indexed, there shouldn't be any performance loss. Also, archiving an old version when making a new revision will be much simpler: just change the active indicator rather than copying an entire node to another table (and ensuring everything gets copied...again a potential maintainance issue). To be honest, I would just like to see the serialized data go away, regarless of what approach is taken. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 30, 2004 - 20:49 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_07-30-2004.p… (10.47 KB) I'm interested in using Drupal for a large scale wiki-type project. In order to do this, I need revisions to be in their own table. Attached is a patch to do just that. Most of the changes are pretty self explanatory. Spreading out node data across two tables meant that I had to add database functions to do locking/transactions. Without this, race conditions in which the database becomes corrupted are possible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 30, 2004 - 20:54 : Nick Nassar Oh yeah... The patch is a diff against Drupal CVS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 01:00 : Anonymous Gerhard speaking. Nick, thanks a lot for your nice patch! It saves me a great deal of labour. I looked through it and immediately liked it. You not only put the old revisions into a new table but also the current one. Do you have an estimate how much more expensive the additional join is? Besides a few minor coding style issues I found a major one: Just a few hours before you uploaded your patch JonBob's node access patch hit core. That means your patch won't apply anymore as all the queries you change have been changed. Can I bug you to update your patch? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 02:11 : Anonymous Also I think that your upgrade path loses existing revisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 03:39 : drumm I think this is the proper way to do things. No columns are duplicated, there is no serialized data, and only the fields that are logically revised are stored. Nothing jumped out at me as a way to have my node modules be able to keep a table of revisions of additional fields. I'm guessing this could be done within the confines of _insert and _update. Assuming the upgrade path works and modules can extend it I give it a +1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 15:40 : Nick Nassar It figures that just as I finish a big patch, another patch comes along and breaks it. Oh well, it should be a pretty easy to fix. I'll work on it. Fixing the upgrade path to keep revisions should be fairly painless. I found another issue that needs to be fixed before this patch gets merged. There format of a node needs to be stored for each revision. Otherwise, for modules that store a format for the nodes, such as page and book, if you write one revision in PHP and the next in HTML, the PHP revision will be displayed as HTML. This is part of a larger issue of how node modules should store revisions of additional fields. I think each module that wants to do this should create another table with (nid, revid) as the primary key. Just as when they want to add fields to a node they create another table with nid as the primary key. As far as performance goes, for sites that make heavy use of revisions, an extra join on primary keys is going to be a lot faster than grabbing all of the revisions from that database everytime. We would need to run benchmarks to determine is the overall difference in speed is for an average site is a gain or a loss. I'm guessing it's very minor either way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 14:55 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_08-23-2004.p… (10.92 KB) Here's an updated patch against CVS that puts revisions in their own table, provides an upgrade path, and fixes the format related bugs in the last patch. Hopefully, this can make it into CVS as soon as the freeze is over. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 15:10 : moshe weitzman Interesting patch ... drumm's question is still outstanding. how do modules store revisions of their fields? Are they expected to manage this on their own? Thats not how it works today. As an aside, i am seeing profile_ fields in my node.revisions column. One could argue that those need not be saved. They pertain to the node author, not to the node itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 17:14 : Nick Nassar Having modules be responsible for storing revisions of their own fields is a side-effect of storing revision data in tables. There's really no way around it. However, revisions generally don't make sense for node types that don't have PHP/HTML content, such as polls. I think it's going to be a pretty rare scenario for a new node type to want another field to change per-revision, so it's a pretty good trade-off. Storing fields that shouldn't be part of revisions, such as the profile_ fields, is a side-effect of storing revisions as serialized objects. Applying this patch will free up that wasted space. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 18:20 : Anonymous There should be a hook that let's the module choose whether it supports history. This way a module author can prevent the user from doing something that may break his module or just cause undefined behavior. If the module doesn't support history then don't let the user/admin choose to add history to nodes of that type. Craig ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 20:23 : Nick Nassar I agree, there should be an API change to make specifying support for revisions easier. In the interests of keeping patches small and keeping to one change per patch, I think the API change should be a separate issue. A sort of ad-hoc API to decide whether or not a module supports revisions by default already exists. Instead of having a hook, modules set the default value of the "Create new revision" field in the edit form. The admin can change this option in admin/node/configure/defaults. This patch doesn't change that. Revisions are broken for node types that have their own database structure, like polls, even when storing them as serialized objects. This patch doesn't change that, either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 26, 2004 - 03:35 : moshe weitzman I'm guessing that someone is going to have to demonstrate that this patch performs as well as current drupal before it gets comitted. i think this patch is a few benchmarks from being comitted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 27, 2004 - 02:04 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004.p… (11 KB) I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 27, 2004 - 02:05 : Nick Nassar I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 27, 2004 - 02:05 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004.p… (11 KB) I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 15, 2004 - 06:05 : elias1884 please overthink the revision system default workflow as well. don't look at the revision system as an isolated system but as a part of the whole workflow system! if you combine revisions with the moderation queue the most logic default workflow would be like that: auth user creates node (revision #0) admin approves the node (status = 1, moderation = 0) => node publicly available auth user finds typo and changes node (revision #1, status = 0, moderation = 1) ------- what happens at that point at the moment is, that the node is not accessible anymore at all until the new revision is approved by admin. of course the new revision should not go online until reviewed and approved, this is absolutely correct, but there is no reason to not take the old revision offline, since it was already approved and should therefore be online until the new revision is approved. it is not practical if a node disappears only because the author corrected a typo. ------- admin approves the node (status = 1, moderation = 0) eventhough I first thought a plain boolean active field would not be capable of providing that functionality if finally came to the conclusion, that it can. The only thing to do is to not set that bit, when a new revision is created, but when it is approved (in case moderation is activated under default workflow). Every revision should have its own moderation, status and active field and on approval they are set like this (status=1, moderation=0, active=Y). When you wanna rollback to an old revision, you can chose between all revisions that already have the moderation bit set back to 0 again and the published to 1. There should be an extra permission for rollback! another concern that I have about the default workflow is, that users can't see the content, they have just created, when moderation is enabled. Eventhough, there is a big fat "submission accepted" presented after submissions, unexperienced users tend to question the information those stupid tincans give them, if they can't find their content afterwards. Many users are really lazy bastards and they don't even read the status messages. The best feedback about whether his story was submitted successfully or not of course is, if he can find the story somewhere on the site, maybe with a status message on top of it, mentioning, that the content is currently not publicly available since it has not been approved yet. there should be a my content section under my account, like somebody is trying to do with the workspace module I guess. so my suggestion is to make (status=0, moderation=1) still available for the creator under a my content section somewhere! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 24, 2004 - 05:21 : Nick Nassar I agree. The current workflow for moderation queues and revisions needs to change, but this patch isn't the place for it. The patch is already too big, and it only does the backend stuff. Instead of adding more to this patch and making it take even longer to get into core, would you mind creating a new issue for your UI suggestions, so the those changes can be added as a separate patch? Thanks, Nick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 13:26 : Dries This patch is _much_ needed so I'd love to see someone revive it. In order for this patch to be accepted, the following needs to be done: Update this patch to CVS HEAD. Rename revid to vid. Rename node_rev to node_revisions. Rename node_rev.changed to node_revisions.timestamp. Rename $rnode to $revision. Fix the coding style to match Drupal's: proper spacing, single quotes where possible, proper variable names. Benchmark this patch with a large database with enough revisions. I'd be happy to benchmark this on my local copy of the drupal.org database. The book.log field should probably move to the node_revisions table. This can be done in a separate patch. Investigate whether transactions are well-supported. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 01:25 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004-r… (11.02 KB) I've worked a bit on the patch (coding style issues as mentioned by Dries). One thing I noticed is that the patch uses REPLACE. IIRC this needs to be chagned to "UPDATE, if fail INSERT" for pgsql compatibility. Nick, are you still interested in working on that patch? I'd like to know how it works on your site and work on getting it into core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 13:33 : Dries Gerhard: your patch does not apply. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 18:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org Yes, I know, that was the same version as I mailed to you earlier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 22:02 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions.patch (52.96 KB) Ok, upüdated the patch to cvs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 09:58 : Dries Some more comments: db_begin_transaction() and db_end_transaction() do not belong in database.inc, but in database.mysql.inc and database.pgsql.inc respectively. The node module calls node_revisionsision_list() which is not defined. (Fxed that on my local copy.) Do db_begin_transaction() and db_end_transaction() deprecate Jeremy's table locking patch? The upgrade path assigns the wrong user ID to each revision. The upgrade path assigns the wrong date to each revision (that or a node's revision page shows the wrong usernames/dates). The coding style needs a bit of work, but we can worry about that later. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 18:34 : Nick Nassar If you need any help getting those things fixed, just let me know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 18:50 : Nick Nassar How this relates to Jeremy's node locking patch: There was lots of discussion, and node locking was decided against because from an end user point of view you never want a node to be locked. He's now advocating for a much simpler patch that warns users if their changes will overwrite someone elses. That patch still has a race condition, which might be fixed using db_begin_transaction(). http://drupal.org/node/6025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 23:26 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_0.patch (55.96 KB) Here is an updated patch that tries to address Dries concerns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 15, 2004 - 09:32 : Dries Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions-bug.png (76.06 KB) It didn't fix the aforementioned bugs. See attached screenshot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 6, 2005 - 21:15 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_1.patch (51.77 KB) Ok, here is a new version. Dries and myself worked hart at it, so please have a look. what is still missing - database upgrades for the core modules with an own table - contrib modules need an upgrade too. - do we need nid and vid in both the node and the node_revisions table? - the amount of sql queries means a good stress testing for large databases. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 19, 2005 - 22:43 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_2.patch (49.49 KB) Here is an updated patch. We discussed to keep the current title in node module and also in the revisiosn table. This is content duplication but will save many joins as many queries only need the title of a node. Discussion is welcome. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 00:33 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_3.patch (29.93 KB) I've implemented the aforementioned solution. This makes the patch much smaller. The patch now also removes taxonomy_node_has_term() which wasn't used anywhere. I'd really apprciate if some people could test drive the patch. It will be another huge improvement for 4.6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 01:05 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_4.patch (30 KB) Another revision. Steven didn't like my literal $node->vid in queries. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 02:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org - database upgrades for the core modules with an own table - contrib modules need an upgrade too. - do we need nid and vid in both the node and the node_revisions table? - the amount of sql queries means a good stress testing for large databases. These issues are still open, btw. Especially the first one needs to be tackled. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 25, 2005 - 21:11 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_5.patch (51.13 KB) Here is a patch that has the database tables updated for forum, book, and page module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 29, 2005 - 23:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_6.patch (49.18 KB) Yet another update to keep it working with head. The patch now also removes the table definitons for the page table. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 29, 2005 - 23:57 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_7.patch (55.69 KB) Sorry, that was the old version, this is the right one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 20:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_8.patch (55.71 KB) Updated once more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 21:52 : Dries Anyone to help review/test this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 22:22 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_9.patch (49.29 KB) Updated again, the update functions occurred twice. Thanks Bart. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 01:27 : killes(a)www.drop.org Don't know if the db I am using is corrupted or what. I still do have some didficulties. The latest patch is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 01:27 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_10.patch (49.67 KB) I am probably slowly going mad ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 02:54 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_11.patch (48.95 KB) The update issue still needs investigating. This patch is updated for cvs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 21:20 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_12.patch (49.83 KB) Ok, here is a new version. I've solved my troubles with book.module. There are still some issues with forum module. Possibly due to inconsistent database. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 22:31 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_13.patch (49.83 KB) Turns out the drupal.org database had indeed some quirks. Please run this query in your oldest db and tell me the result: select nid,type from node where type like '%/%'; If you get a non-zero result we might need to add another security update. The patch could use still more testing, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 02:16 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_14.patch (49 KB) Ok, we are getting somewhere. At a first glance the update is working. There is a problem remaining: the revisions tab will be shown whether the node has revisions or not. Not sure we can/need to fix this. People with a drupal.org account can log in at http://killes.drupaldevs.org/revision/ and poke around. Your permissions will be the same as on drupal.org. Feel free to vreak everything but don't forget to file complaints here. (Note: this is only a pruned version of the drupal.org database with all project nodes and nodes with nids > 7000 dropped). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 05:19 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_15.patch (52.39 KB) There was some error in node_save and also the patches to the database.inc files got lost... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 08:07 : robertDouglass Submitting book pages doesn't work on your test site. It puts the entire content of the preview inside the body textarea. I wrote a sentence in the body and the log, and pressing preview put several lines of HTML containing both sentences in the body textarea on the preview page, plus the book page wouldn't submit. -R ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 08:50 : Junyor 0 results here. I started using Drupal with version 4.4, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 00:56 : killes(a)www.drop.org @Junyor: Thanks, that's a good sign. Maybe somebody else has an older db to try. @robertDouglass: The first effect you describe is due to drupaldevs running on PHP 5. I am unsure why the second thing does not work. In node_save() the node object has a nid although there is none in the form. Very strange. I've enabled display of db queries on the testsite. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 20:17 : dmjossel No results here on the query: select nid,type from node where type like '%/%'; On a database that was put in place prior to Drupal 4 and is now running on 4.5.2. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/7582 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/7582

1 0

[drupal-devel] [task] Put revisions in their own table
by dmjossel 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system Category: tasks Priority: normal Assigned to: killes(a)www.drop.org Reported by: killes(a)www.drop.org Updated by: dmjossel Status: patch No results here on the query: select nid,type from node where type like '%/%'; On a database that was put in place prior to Drupal 4 and is now running on 4.5.2. dmjossel Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 5, 2004 - 23:25 : killes(a)www.drop.org Currently all node revisions are stored in a serialized field in node.table and retrieved for _each_ page view although they are rarely needed. However, we have agreed that serializing data is bad and that we should try to keep the memory foot print pf Drupal small. Therefore I propose to create a separate revisions table which would be in principle identical to the node table, only that it could have several old copies of the same node. Extra data added by other modules could be added in a serialized field unless we find a better solution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 6, 2004 - 00:06 : jhriggs I too think the serialized approach is less than desirable, but here's an alternative. This would likely take some considerable rework in core and contrib, but the following is how we handle similar types of situations in our databases at work. It is more elegant that a separate table, and avoids the (almost exact) duplication of a table. Instead of separate tables, keep all revisions of nodes in the node table as follows: * add field: active (0/1 or Y/N) * add field: revision * every revision of a node is stored in the node table; however, only one revision can be active at any given time * nid can no longer be unique -- primary/unique key becomes (nid, active) * any time a node is loaded, updated (without revision), etc., the active version is used. Thoughts? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 6, 2004 - 00:57 : killes(a)www.drop.org I am not opposed to your scheme, but I want to stress the following: * Duplicating a table's structure is not bad (IMHO) as long as the content is different. * having two tables will allow us to have a rather small node table. This is (maybe) a performance gain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ May 6, 2004 - 01:37 : jhriggs I don't necessarily think that duplicating a table's structure is _bad_. It just seems to be wasteful and a pain to maintain. (Every change to the node table is made twice...easy to do, but also easy to miss perhaps.) As for performance, as long as nid and the active indicator are indexed, there shouldn't be any performance loss. Also, archiving an old version when making a new revision will be much simpler: just change the active indicator rather than copying an entire node to another table (and ensuring everything gets copied...again a potential maintainance issue). To be honest, I would just like to see the serialized data go away, regarless of what approach is taken. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 02:49 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_07-30-2004.p… (10.47 KB) I'm interested in using Drupal for a large scale wiki-type project. In order to do this, I need revisions to be in their own table. Attached is a patch to do just that. Most of the changes are pretty self explanatory. Spreading out node data across two tables meant that I had to add database functions to do locking/transactions. Without this, race conditions in which the database becomes corrupted are possible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 02:54 : Nick Nassar Oh yeah... The patch is a diff against Drupal CVS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 07:00 : Anonymous Gerhard speaking. Nick, thanks a lot for your nice patch! It saves me a great deal of labour. I looked through it and immediately liked it. You not only put the old revisions into a new table but also the current one. Do you have an estimate how much more expensive the additional join is? Besides a few minor coding style issues I found a major one: Just a few hours before you uploaded your patch JonBob's node access patch hit core. That means your patch won't apply anymore as all the queries you change have been changed. Can I bug you to update your patch? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 08:11 : Anonymous Also I think that your upgrade path loses existing revisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 09:39 : drumm I think this is the proper way to do things. No columns are duplicated, there is no serialized data, and only the fields that are logically revised are stored. Nothing jumped out at me as a way to have my node modules be able to keep a table of revisions of additional fields. I'm guessing this could be done within the confines of _insert and _update. Assuming the upgrade path works and modules can extend it I give it a +1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 2004 - 21:40 : Nick Nassar It figures that just as I finish a big patch, another patch comes along and breaks it. Oh well, it should be a pretty easy to fix. I'll work on it. Fixing the upgrade path to keep revisions should be fairly painless. I found another issue that needs to be fixed before this patch gets merged. There format of a node needs to be stored for each revision. Otherwise, for modules that store a format for the nodes, such as page and book, if you write one revision in PHP and the next in HTML, the PHP revision will be displayed as HTML. This is part of a larger issue of how node modules should store revisions of additional fields. I think each module that wants to do this should create another table with (nid, revid) as the primary key. Just as when they want to add fields to a node they create another table with nid as the primary key. As far as performance goes, for sites that make heavy use of revisions, an extra join on primary keys is going to be a lot faster than grabbing all of the revisions from that database everytime. We would need to run benchmarks to determine is the overall difference in speed is for an average site is a gain or a loss. I'm guessing it's very minor either way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 20:55 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_08-23-2004.p… (10.92 KB) Here's an updated patch against CVS that puts revisions in their own table, provides an upgrade path, and fixes the format related bugs in the last patch. Hopefully, this can make it into CVS as soon as the freeze is over. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 21:10 : moshe weitzman Interesting patch ... drumm's question is still outstanding. how do modules store revisions of their fields? Are they expected to manage this on their own? Thats not how it works today. As an aside, i am seeing profile_ fields in my node.revisions column. One could argue that those need not be saved. They pertain to the node author, not to the node itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 23, 2004 - 23:14 : Nick Nassar Having modules be responsible for storing revisions of their own fields is a side-effect of storing revision data in tables. There's really no way around it. However, revisions generally don't make sense for node types that don't have PHP/HTML content, such as polls. I think it's going to be a pretty rare scenario for a new node type to want another field to change per-revision, so it's a pretty good trade-off. Storing fields that shouldn't be part of revisions, such as the profile_ fields, is a side-effect of storing revisions as serialized objects. Applying this patch will free up that wasted space. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 24, 2004 - 00:20 : Anonymous There should be a hook that let's the module choose whether it supports history. This way a module author can prevent the user from doing something that may break his module or just cause undefined behavior. If the module doesn't support history then don't let the user/admin choose to add history to nodes of that type. Craig ------------------------------------------------------------------------ August 24, 2004 - 02:23 : Nick Nassar I agree, there should be an API change to make specifying support for revisions easier. In the interests of keeping patches small and keeping to one change per patch, I think the API change should be a separate issue. A sort of ad-hoc API to decide whether or not a module supports revisions by default already exists. Instead of having a hook, modules set the default value of the "Create new revision" field in the edit form. The admin can change this option in admin/node/configure/defaults. This patch doesn't change that. Revisions are broken for node types that have their own database structure, like polls, even when storing them as serialized objects. This patch doesn't change that, either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 26, 2004 - 09:35 : moshe weitzman I'm guessing that someone is going to have to demonstrate that this patch performs as well as current drupal before it gets comitted. i think this patch is a few benchmarks from being comitted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 27, 2004 - 08:04 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004.p… (11 KB) I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 27, 2004 - 08:05 : Nick Nassar I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 27, 2004 - 08:05 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004.p… (11 KB) I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 15, 2004 - 12:05 : elias1884 please overthink the revision system default workflow as well. don't look at the revision system as an isolated system but as a part of the whole workflow system! if you combine revisions with the moderation queue the most logic default workflow would be like that: auth user creates node (revision #0) admin approves the node (status = 1, moderation = 0) => node publicly available auth user finds typo and changes node (revision #1, status = 0, moderation = 1) ------- what happens at that point at the moment is, that the node is not accessible anymore at all until the new revision is approved by admin. of course the new revision should not go online until reviewed and approved, this is absolutely correct, but there is no reason to not take the old revision offline, since it was already approved and should therefore be online until the new revision is approved. it is not practical if a node disappears only because the author corrected a typo. ------- admin approves the node (status = 1, moderation = 0) eventhough I first thought a plain boolean active field would not be capable of providing that functionality if finally came to the conclusion, that it can. The only thing to do is to not set that bit, when a new revision is created, but when it is approved (in case moderation is activated under default workflow). Every revision should have its own moderation, status and active field and on approval they are set like this (status=1, moderation=0, active=Y). When you wanna rollback to an old revision, you can chose between all revisions that already have the moderation bit set back to 0 again and the published to 1. There should be an extra permission for rollback! another concern that I have about the default workflow is, that users can't see the content, they have just created, when moderation is enabled. Eventhough, there is a big fat "submission accepted" presented after submissions, unexperienced users tend to question the information those stupid tincans give them, if they can't find their content afterwards. Many users are really lazy bastards and they don't even read the status messages. The best feedback about whether his story was submitted successfully or not of course is, if he can find the story somewhere on the site, maybe with a status message on top of it, mentioning, that the content is currently not publicly available since it has not been approved yet. there should be a my content section under my account, like somebody is trying to do with the workspace module I guess. so my suggestion is to make (status=0, moderation=1) still available for the creator under a my content section somewhere! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ November 24, 2004 - 11:21 : Nick Nassar I agree. The current workflow for moderation queues and revisions needs to change, but this patch isn't the place for it. The patch is already too big, and it only does the backend stuff. Instead of adding more to this patch and making it take even longer to get into core, would you mind creating a new issue for your UI suggestions, so the those changes can be added as a separate patch? Thanks, Nick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 19:26 : Dries This patch is _much_ needed so I'd love to see someone revive it. In order for this patch to be accepted, the following needs to be done: Update this patch to CVS HEAD. Rename revid to vid. Rename node_rev to node_revisions. Rename node_rev.changed to node_revisions.timestamp. Rename $rnode to $revision. Fix the coding style to match Drupal's: proper spacing, single quotes where possible, proper variable names. Benchmark this patch with a large database with enough revisions. I'd be happy to benchmark this on my local copy of the drupal.org database. The book.log field should probably move to the node_revisions table. This can be done in a separate patch. Investigate whether transactions are well-supported. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 07:25 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004-r… (11.02 KB) I've worked a bit on the patch (coding style issues as mentioned by Dries). One thing I noticed is that the patch uses REPLACE. IIRC this needs to be chagned to "UPDATE, if fail INSERT" for pgsql compatibility. Nick, are you still interested in working on that patch? I'd like to know how it works on your site and work on getting it into core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 19:33 : Dries Gerhard: your patch does not apply. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 00:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org Yes, I know, that was the same version as I mailed to you earlier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 04:02 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions.patch (52.96 KB) Ok, upüdated the patch to cvs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 14, 2004 - 15:58 : Dries Some more comments: db_begin_transaction() and db_end_transaction() do not belong in database.inc, but in database.mysql.inc and database.pgsql.inc respectively. The node module calls node_revisionsision_list() which is not defined. (Fxed that on my local copy.) Do db_begin_transaction() and db_end_transaction() deprecate Jeremy's table locking patch? The upgrade path assigns the wrong user ID to each revision. The upgrade path assigns the wrong date to each revision (that or a node's revision page shows the wrong usernames/dates). The coding style needs a bit of work, but we can worry about that later. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 15, 2004 - 00:34 : Nick Nassar If you need any help getting those things fixed, just let me know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 15, 2004 - 00:50 : Nick Nassar How this relates to Jeremy's node locking patch: There was lots of discussion, and node locking was decided against because from an end user point of view you never want a node to be locked. He's now advocating for a much simpler patch that warns users if their changes will overwrite someone elses. That patch still has a race condition, which might be fixed using db_begin_transaction(). http://drupal.org/node/6025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 15, 2004 - 05:26 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_0.patch (55.96 KB) Here is an updated patch that tries to address Dries concerns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 15, 2004 - 15:32 : Dries Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions-bug.png (76.06 KB) It didn't fix the aforementioned bugs. See attached screenshot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 7, 2005 - 03:15 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_1.patch (51.77 KB) Ok, here is a new version. Dries and myself worked hart at it, so please have a look. what is still missing - database upgrades for the core modules with an own table - contrib modules need an upgrade too. - do we need nid and vid in both the node and the node_revisions table? - the amount of sql queries means a good stress testing for large databases. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 04:43 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_2.patch (49.49 KB) Here is an updated patch. We discussed to keep the current title in node module and also in the revisiosn table. This is content duplication but will save many joins as many queries only need the title of a node. Discussion is welcome. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 06:33 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_3.patch (29.93 KB) I've implemented the aforementioned solution. This makes the patch much smaller. The patch now also removes taxonomy_node_has_term() which wasn't used anywhere. I'd really apprciate if some people could test drive the patch. It will be another huge improvement for 4.6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 07:05 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_4.patch (30 KB) Another revision. Steven didn't like my literal $node->vid in queries. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 08:10 : killes(a)www.drop.org - database upgrades for the core modules with an own table - contrib modules need an upgrade too. - do we need nid and vid in both the node and the node_revisions table? - the amount of sql queries means a good stress testing for large databases. These issues are still open, btw. Especially the first one needs to be tackled. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 26, 2005 - 03:11 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_5.patch (51.13 KB) Here is a patch that has the database tables updated for forum, book, and page module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 30, 2005 - 05:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_6.patch (49.18 KB) Yet another update to keep it working with head. The patch now also removes the table definitons for the page table. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 30, 2005 - 05:57 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_7.patch (55.69 KB) Sorry, that was the old version, this is the right one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 1, 2005 - 02:55 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_8.patch (55.71 KB) Updated once more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 1, 2005 - 03:52 : Dries Anyone to help review/test this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 1, 2005 - 04:22 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_9.patch (49.29 KB) Updated again, the update functions occurred twice. Thanks Bart. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 07:27 : killes(a)www.drop.org Don't know if the db I am using is corrupted or what. I still do have some didficulties. The latest patch is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 07:27 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_10.patch (49.67 KB) I am probably slowly going mad ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 2, 2005 - 08:54 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_11.patch (48.95 KB) The update issue still needs investigating. This patch is updated for cvs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 03:20 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_12.patch (49.83 KB) Ok, here is a new version. I've solved my troubles with book.module. There are still some issues with forum module. Possibly due to inconsistent database. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 04:31 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_13.patch (49.83 KB) Turns out the drupal.org database had indeed some quirks. Please run this query in your oldest db and tell me the result: select nid,type from node where type like '%/%'; If you get a non-zero result we might need to add another security update. The patch could use still more testing, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 08:16 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_14.patch (49 KB) Ok, we are getting somewhere. At a first glance the update is working. There is a problem remaining: the revisions tab will be shown whether the node has revisions or not. Not sure we can/need to fix this. People with a drupal.org account can log in at http://killes.drupaldevs.org/revision/ and poke around. Your permissions will be the same as on drupal.org. Feel free to vreak everything but don't forget to file complaints here. (Note: this is only a pruned version of the drupal.org database with all project nodes and nodes with nids > 7000 dropped). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 11:19 : killes(a)www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_15.patch (52.39 KB) There was some error in node_save and also the patches to the database.inc files got lost... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 14:07 : robertDouglass Submitting book pages doesn't work on your test site. It puts the entire content of the preview inside the body textarea. I wrote a sentence in the body and the log, and pressing preview put several lines of HTML containing both sentences in the body textarea on the preview page, plus the book page wouldn't submit. -R ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 14:50 : Junyor 0 results here. I started using Drupal with version 4.4, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 06:56 : killes(a)www.drop.org @Junyor: Thanks, that's a good sign. Maybe somebody else has an older db to try. @robertDouglass: The first effect you describe is due to drupaldevs running on PHP 5. I am unsure why the second thing does not work. In node_save() the node object has a nid although there is none in the form. Very strange. I've enabled display of db queries on the testsite. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/7582 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/7582

1 0

[drupal-devel] [Fwd: [droppies] Digital communities - Prix Ars Electronica 2005]
by Dries Buytaert 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Digital communities - Prix Ars Electronica 2005 Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:36:35 +0100 From: AEC Communities <communities(a)prixars.aec.at> To: <info(a)drupal.org> Dear Drupal Team, The category "Digital Communities", which met with great interest and participation in 2004, will be awarded again by Prix Ars Electronica in 2005. As you had been participating last year, we would kindly like to invite you and your team to submit your project "http://drupal.org/" - or a new project - in the category "Digital Communities" of this year's Prix Ars Electronica. The Digital Communities category of Prix Ars Electronica encompasses digital community projects as well as developments in the field of social software, mobile communications or wireless networks. For a detailed description of the category and about Prix Ars Electronica in general, please see our website: <http://www.aec.at/en/prix/communities/communities.asp> Prizes One Golden Nica with 10,000 Euro and two Awards of Distinction with 5,000 Euro each will be awarded and up to 12 Honorary Mentions made by the jury. The registration starts January 10, 2005. The deadline for submissions is March 11, 2005. Please use <http://www.aec.at/en/prix/registration/index.asp> for your submission and to obtain further details. If you need any further information or help, please do not hesitate to contact us. Looking forward to your participation! Sincerely yours, > Ingrid Fischer-Schreiber > Prix Ars Electronica 2005 > > AEC Ars Electronica Center Linz > Museumsgesellschaft mbH > Hauptstraße 2 > A-4040 Linz > > Tel. ++43.664.8126230 > Fax ++43.732.7272-674 > communities(a)prixars.aec.at > http://prixars.aec.at > > -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/ _______________________________________________ droppies mailing list droppies(a)drupal.org http://lists.drupal.org/listinfo/droppies

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Enclosure Support for Aggregator
by sulleleven 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

Project: Drupal Version: 4.5.2 Component: aggregator.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: geeknews Updated by: sulleleven Status: patch antipasto- this doesnt change the aggragator's ability to parse enclosures... which this request is about. I am going to look at aggregator.module and see what needs to be done. sulleleven Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 - 15:32 : geeknews The aggregator should be able to parse the enclosure information out of RSS 2.0 feeds. It should be implemented to recognize and display the links to enclosures. If you want to 1 up the competition add the code to determine standard file types mp3, wma, ogg, etc and place a download Icon within the aggregated content. I have donated and would be willing to help out more to see something like this implemented. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 00:21 : antipasto Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/drupal_452_rss20.tar.gz (35.63 KB) Here's a patch for 4.5.2, but this will be implemented way better in 4.6: http://writtorrent.sourceforge.net/2005/02/rss-20-feeds-with-enclosures-for… -- View: http://drupal.org/node/16485 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/16485

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] Signature "interrupts" typing comments due to existence in text field
by irwin 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: comment.module Category: bug reports Priority: minor Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: irwin Updated by: irwin Status: patch I realised as I was going to bed last night that the extra query was extraneous. :) As for adding the comment to the comment body, the reason I would want to do that is for the signature to "appear" to be a part of the... well, comment body. That will avoid potential issues with some themes that aren't designed to handle signatures at all - for instance, a theme might put a border around the "body" part of the signature, and if it doesn't explicitly handle the signature, things can look very ugly and strange. But I can see what you mean about Input Filtering. Do you have suggestions on how to improve that? I had one idea, and that was to add the signature as an argument to the theme, but that would require theme modifications fir signatures to be displayed. If this patch is of interest I'll keep working on it and posting updates. irwin Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 3, 2005 - 23:47 : irwin In the Drupal comments/ signature system, there is a usability problem with the signature. The main problem is that, when adding a comment, the signature appears in the same line as the textarea that you are writing the content of your post. When you begin typing, your new text actually appears AFTER the signature (at least in Konqueror 3.2). This makes it incredibly annoying for users because you have to go to the beginning of the textarea before you can type your data. A corrolary to this problem is that, when quoting (using the quote module), the signature is included by default in the quote, which should not be the default behaviour. It appears that the signature is being added to the actual body text of the comment, as opposed to being retrieved from the user's profile when the page is rendered. -- >From an engineering/design perspective, one possible way to fix this is instead of adding the signature text to the comment, instead retrieve the signature dynamically from the user's profile when the page is rendered. If you do this, not only do you avoid the above problems, but you also improve the flexibility of signatures (for example, changing it once will cause the signature to change in every comment you make). You can also use this design change to give the users a choice of when to display their signature (for example, by using a checkbox on the node that says, "Display your signature with this post"). -- Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 00:49 : irwin Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/signature_load_on_render-20050204.patch (1.62 KB) Included: patch. Changes explanation: "theme_comment_form": the code to autoinsert the signature into the textarea is removed. "theme_comment_view": code added to insert signature at the end of the $comment->comment data structure. I encase the comment in [p class="signature"] [/p] (with the correct brackets of course) so that a CSS theme can change the appearance of signatures. Caveat: the sig still appears in the [div class="body"] of the comment theme. Added function _comment_get_signature($uid), which gets a signature, given a user ID. Caveat: this requires an additional query to the "users" table with every user comment. Tested with: - User without signature - User with signature - Anonymous poster - Previewing - Positng - Editing a signature: expected result is that all signatures are changed to reflect the new signature. Please let me know of any problems. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 00:50 : irwin Reducing severity to "minor" because that's what it is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ February 4, 2005 - 04:15 : Bart Jansens The extra queries aren't necessary, the queries that are used to retrieve the comments already join the users table, just add u.signature to the select clause there. I'm not sure if adding the signature to the comment body is the best approach, if you just keep it in a different field, themes can decide where to place it. Note that usually admins will want to be able to use a different filter for signatures. Eg, allow bbcode in the comment body, but not in the signature. I am using a similar patch on my own site (although it really needs to be updated), it never made it into core because it is difficult or almost impossible to create an upgrade path. I hope this can be discussed again, or at least made into an option for new sites, i'm surprised there haven't been more complaints about this ;) -- View: http://drupal.org/node/16726 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/16726

1 0

[drupal-devel] [bug] QUICKFIX: node titles invalidate XHTML
by Goba 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: Goba Reported by: Goba Updated by: Goba Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-nodetitle-validity-fix.patch (839 bytes) The node titles printed by node_title_list() are not filtered through drupal_specialchars(), so titles, like bead&breakfast break XHTML validity... The attached patch fixes this. Goba -- View: http://drupal.org/node/16753 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/16753

1 0