- Development - lists.drupal.org

[drupal-devel] [feature] Menu fast edit node links
by mathias 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs -Component: other +Component: menu system Category: feature requests Priority: minor Assigned to: mathias Reported by: mathias Updated by: mathias -Status: active +Status: patch Woops. Setting status to 'patch'. mathias Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 9, 2004 - 12:15 : mathias Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/menu_fast_edit.patch (1.18 KB) When developers are creating custom menus, the process of adding content becomes twofold: 1. Create content 2. Navigate to administer > menus > add menu item and add the latest node entry This patch adds a link hook to the menu module. Specifically if a node does not have a menu entry the 'add menu item' link appears. If a menu item exists, the 'edit menu item' and 'delete menu item' are displayed thereby speeding up the publishing workflow. Note: This feature is only present when the menu module is enabled. Status: Waiting for JonBobs blessing ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 10, 2004 - 12:21 : JonBob This is interesting. I do have a couple reservations. This adds a bunch of queries to node listing pages, since it has to check for every node whether that node has a menu item set. I also wonder how much time this saves the user in reality. It saves navigating to the menu admin screen, sure, but provides little other help. It seems that if we are to provide a link to the menu item add page, we should at least be pre-filling in the path and title fields for the user. The provided method is little better than having the menu admin page open in another browser tab. Maybe a node link isn't the right interface for this, anyway? Possibly a tab, or a hook_nodeapi('form admin') injection? If done right, this could finally replace that aging "link title" field in page.module nodes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 16:23 : mathias Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/menu_quick_link.patch (5.91 KB) This new patch gives users the ability to define menu items on any node creation/editing form. Screenshot here: http://asitis.org/tmp/menu_quick_link_form.png [1] It does this through nodeapi (as suggested by Jonbob), which means that any node has access to these fields unless specified otherwise via the new menu configuration settings. The functionality lives in menu.module, and users with 'administer menus' permission are allowed to edit the menu item fields inside the node form. One more note. I'm also proposing the addition of a misc/drupal.js [2] file to Drupal core (* gasp *). Currently it includes javascript functions to hide regions of a page. When a link is clicked on for a collapsed region, the region unfolds revealing the additional parts of a page. In this case the menu item fields are displayed after clicking the 'Menu item settings' link. I think it helps make best use of screen real estate, but we'll leave that verdict up to the usability experts. Let's remove the js file if it's the only thing stopping this patch from being submitted. I thought it might be worth exploring, especially for form pre and form post regions of the node form. [1] http://asitis.org/tmp/menu_quick_link_form.png [2] http://asitis.org/tmp/drupal.js -- View: http://drupal.org/node/9178 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/9178

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Show taxonomy admin link on taxonomy admin form
by Goba 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: taxonomy.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Goba Reported by: Goba Updated by: Goba Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-add-taxonomy-admin-link.patch (773 bytes) Not waiting for the HIG ;), this is a quick idea ported from Basecamp [1], to let admins jump to the taxonomy admin pages whenever they find that they need to extend the categories. I often come to the conclusion that the available terms are not enough, and I need to add more, in which case this link is quite handy. Otherwise it will probably be debated :) [1] http://www.basecamphq.com/tour-posting.php Goba -- View: http://drupal.org/node/16027 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/16027

3 4

[drupal-devel] cvs log messages
by no-reply＠zind.net 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

File: Date: January 24, 2005 - 20:14 User: latpro ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: Date: January 24, 2005 - 20:14 User: latpro ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /translations/de/locale-inc.po 1.5 Date: January 24, 2005 - 19:43 User: timcn Translation complete ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/og/og.module 1.1.2.26 DRUPAL-4-5 Date: January 24, 2005 - 17:12 User: weitzman url encoded links to albums since they can contain all sorts of strange characters moved 'my albums' menu item to the $may_cache sectio nsothat it can be disabled if desired. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/og/og.module 1.30 Date: January 24, 2005 - 17:06 User: weitzman url encoded links to albums since they can contain all sorts of strange characters moved 'my albums' menu item to the $may_cache sectio nsothat it can be disabled if desired. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: Date: January 24, 2005 - 16:59 User: weitzman sync with HEAD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/recipe/recipe.module 1.36 Date: January 24, 2005 - 16:05 User: weitzman 4.6 compatible ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/project/issue.inc 1.85 Date: January 24, 2005 - 14:51 User: dries - Small visual refinement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: Date: January 24, 2005 - 03:59 User: chris Change deprecated node/view/x to node/x/view. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/i18n/CHANGELOG.txt 1.7 /modules/i18n/flags/en.gif NONE /modules/i18n/flags/es.gif NONE /modules/i18n/flags/fr.gif NONE /modules/i18n/flags/it.gif NONE /modules/i18n/flags/nl.gif NONE /modules/i18n/i18n.module 1.14 /modules/i18n/i18n_node.inc 1.4 /modules/i18n/i18n_taxonomy.inc 1.3 /modules/i18n/patches/central_node_query_node_module.patch NONE /modules/i18n/patches/i18n.mysql 1.2 /modules/i18n/patches/i18n_bootstrap_inc_01.patch NONE /modules/i18n/patches/i18n_comment_module.patch NONE /modules/i18n/patches/i18n_common_inc_01.patch NONE /modules/i18n/patches/i18n_module_inc.patch NONE /modules/i18n/patches/i18n_taxonomy_module_01.patch 1.3 /modules/i18n/TODO.txt 1.3 Date: January 24, 2005 - 00:31 User: jareyero Reworked init system, updated patches ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /INSTALL.txt 1.11 Date: January 23, 2005 - 22:51 User: dries - Removed vague information. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/cvslog/cvs.module 1.39 Date: January 23, 2005 - 22:43 User: dries - Fixed small glitch in upgrade path. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/book.module 1.262.2.4 DRUPAL-4-5 Date: January 23, 2005 - 22:39 User: dries - Patch #15948 by matteo: the book module should call the nodeapi hook when printing printer-friendly pages. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: Date: January 23, 2005 - 22:35 User: dries - Patch #15948 by matteo: the book module should call the nodeapi hook when printing printer-friendly pages. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/cvslog/cvs.module 1.38 /modules/cvslog/cvs.mysql 1.5 Date: January 23, 2005 - 22:06 User: dries - More updates. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/sitemap/sitemap.module 1.9 Date: January 23, 2005 - 21:12 User: kbahey Missing brace causes havoc. Fixed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- File: /modules/sitemap/sitemap.module 1.8 Date: January 23, 2005 - 21:08 User: kbahey More efficient way when not displaying nodes, avoiding unnecessary queries to the database. This should also make the block mode much faster. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Handle full URLs in url() and l()
by mathias 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: base system Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: Anonymous Reported by: jhriggs Updated by: mathias Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/external_urls.patch (838 bytes) Revisiting this issue one year later shows we're almost there. The only thing that's left is the ability to handle external urls when clean_urls is disabled. Once implemented, menu.module can happily accept external urls and not just Drupal paths, making the menu system much more attractive to end users. I'll update the menu.module docs if this patch (or an alternative solution) is accepted. mathias Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 16, 2004 - 10:01 : jhriggs Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/full_url.patch (1.97 KB) This little patch allows full URLs to be used for the url() and l() functions, giving modules a single interface for creating links. Currently, modules must use l() for drupal links and raw HTML for external links. This patch changes url() to handle -- basically pass through -- full URLs while still doing the proper handling of internal paths and works with clean URLs enabled or disabled. It also shortens (and hopefully simplifies) the url() code a bit. Some examples of calls that now work: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ September 30, 2004 - 06:09 : moshe weitzman +1. less HTML in code is a good thing for readability, if nothing else. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/10888 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/10888

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Testers needed: Node Type filtering in taxonomy on Drupal 4.5
by matteo 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: taxonomy.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: matteo Reported by: matteo Updated by: matteo Status: patch Personally, the proposed syntax is not important, but the functionality is VERY important, so, the actual code for this patch can be revised to adapt to a different syntax. I chose that syntax since now the syntax is: taxonomy/term/term_ids/level so if you want to add node types to that syntax, level must be explicitly set, while now it is not mandatory: taxonomy/term/term_ids/level/nodetypes As you can see from the code, it is very simple, but powerful, and compatible with the actual syntax. Once we decide for the syntax, I'm available, if you need, to write some code for it. Matteo matteo Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 25, 2004 - 22:20 : matteo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/taxonomy_nodetype_filter.patch (5.46 KB) The attached fix wants to add a new feature to taxonomy.module: the ability to filter data also on node types. This is a need when you have to share one vocabulary between multiple node types. One example is the vocabulary 'Geography', containing all Cities and Regions. You could have events, stories and other custom made node types, sharing this vocabulary. The need arises when you want to see only events of a certain region; if you filter only on region, you'll see also stories and the other custom node types. The new syntax is the following: taxonomy/term/term1,term2,term3(nodetype1,nodetype2)/........ to filter based on three terms (in OR each others) and on two different node types or taxonomy/term/term1+term2+term3(nodetype1,nodetype2)/........ to filter based on three terms (in AND each others) and on two different node types The rest of the syntax for taxonomy/term remains the same, and the patch works also for taxonomy feed. Node types are tested for validity. You can specify one or more node types; if you omit node types, normal term filtering is issued. Feedbacks and help testing this patch is needed; personally, I think this would improve temendously taxonomy functionalities, and hope this will be committed to Drupal core. Feel free to contact me by mail: m dot ferrari at tiscali dot it Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 25, 2004 - 22:25 : moshe weitzman see http://drupal.org/node/5040 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 25, 2004 - 22:46 : matteo I agree with you that this is an old story, but nothing has been committed to 4.5, that introduced also a new taxonomy syntax. My patch has also some pluses: - it is specific for 4.5 and takes care of the new taxonomy syntax - it lets you specify multiple node types - syntax is clean Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 19, 2005 - 23:05 : robclay Will this work with 4.5.2? If so - I am looking for exactly this funcionality! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 06:43 : matteo I'll work on a port for 4.5.2 hopefully next week... I'll keep you informed. Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 00:19 : matteo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/taxonomy_nodetype_452.patch (4.43 KB) Here is the patch that adds nodetype filtering capabilities to 4.5.2 taxonomy module. Syntax is backwards compatible, so if you plan not to use node type filtering, syntax does not change at all. (see previous postings in this thread) I would need extensive testing and feedback... and hope this functionality will be included into Drupal core. Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 00:38 : Steven New features only get added to the HEAD branch... you'll have to update your patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 07:56 : matteo Ok, Steven, I'll rewrite the patch also for CVS.... Thanks Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 10:16 : matteo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/taxonomy_nodetype_CVS.patch (4.05 KB) Here is the patch for Drupal CVS. I noticed the great addition of node_rewrite_sql... very powerful... I'm starting extensive testing on the patch, and I really woul like it to be added to core taxonomy, because it becomes a must for several sites... Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 15:43 : moshe weitzman I'd rather see this done universally (not just for taxonomy urls) using the new sql rewrite capability. specifically, some code will implement the rewrite_sql hook and look for a querystring param &ntype=blog,story and then inject the proper WHERE clause. this will be very useful for tracker, home page, taxonomy urls, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 16:59 : Dries Before looking at the code (which violates Drupal's coding style), what do people think about the proposed URL scheme? Can anyone tell me why we use 'taxonomy/term/$foo' and not just 'taxonomy/$foo'? How about we change that to: taxonomy/all/$foo (or taxonomy/$foo) taxonomy/forum/$foo taxonomy/forum,book/$foo ... instead of the proposed URL scheme? It looks slightly more readable to me. (Does anyone know what 'synonyms' are for, and whether they could solve this problem? Really, I have no idea what these are for, even after having read the documentation.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 17:15 : jvandyk Synonyms are useful for things like organisms, which have both a common name and a scientific name. That's the idea of synonyms, not necessarily the Drupal implementation of synonyms, which we plan to use but are not yet using. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 17:57 : Steven Can anyone tell me why we use 'taxonomy/term/$foo' and not just 'taxonomy/$foo'? I believe this is because when the URL changes were discussed, there was talk of a 'taxonomy/vocabulary' page which would display an overview of a vocabulary. But I think that role has already been filled by a contributions module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 18:05 : Prometheus6 If taxonomy/$foo retrieves all node types then I think taxonomy/$foo/forum taxonomy/$foo/forum,book is the cleanest looking way to be specific. Give it a fixed position because it will always be there whereas the node type may or may not be. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 18:24 : Steven This could be hard to implement as $foo is a multi-var path. e.g. "taxonomy/terms/1" "taxonomy/terms/1/1" "taxonomy/terms/1/0/feed" etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 19:29 : Prometheus6 How about: taxonomy/$foo,$bar taxonomy/$foo,$bar/forum taxonomy/$foo,$bar/forum,book taxonomy/$foo,$bar/forum/feed -- View: http://drupal.org/node/12114 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/12114

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Improve functionality of block generation for book module
by andremolnar 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: book.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: nysus Reported by: nysus Updated by: andremolnar Status: patch Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/book_module_7.patch (7.43 KB) Yet another patch: Brings this patch in line with - http://drupal.org/node/16074 (i.e. the column name change in {block} table) andre andremolnar Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 9, 2004 - 06:12 : nysus Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/book_19.patch (4.85 KB) Attached is a patch for the book module that does the following: 1) Allows book blocks to appear on any page at any time, not just when a node from the book is being viewed. 2) Allows multiple book blocks to appear on the same page. This functionality is achieved by the automatic creation of individual blocks for each book when the book is created. Simply enable the book's block to enjoy the benefits of 1 & 2 above. If the blocks are not enabled, the blocks will appear only when a node from that block is being viewed (the same way it works now). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 9, 2004 - 12:35 : andremolnar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/book_19_1.patch (4.84 KB) +1 This is great. A good many people have asked for something like this, and I think its a nice solution. But in the end this isn't up to me. One minor error in the patch... + $result = db_query('SELECT n.title, b.block, b.nid FROM {book} b INNER JOIN {node} n on n.nid = b.nid WHERE b.parent = 0'); b.block is not a valid field in this query. this updated patch removes reference to it. andre ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 9, 2004 - 13:54 : nysus Glad you like it and thanks for fixing that up. It was left over from an older version of my patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 9, 2004 - 13:54 : andremolnar Steve, If I apply this patch, and I attempt to configure one of the newly created blocks. I noticed that for some reason the block.module is returning "true" at line 249 (of the block module)- and is creating a form for module-specific configuration. But all that shows up on the screen is the word "array". Can you trace this back to see why - and maybe update the patch. I can continue to test your changes - anything to help this patch make it into core. andre ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 9, 2004 - 15:29 : nysus Hmmm...probably because I tested my patch on my version of Drupal, version 4.5.1. I'm having no problems. Are you using a cvs version of Drupal to test. If so, I'll set up cvs on my site and track this down. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 9, 2004 - 18:53 : drumm See http://drupal.org/node/12347 for information on how the block system has been updated. When I saw that the elseif ($op == 'view') was taken out I knew immedaitely that there was something weird about this patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 9, 2004 - 18:58 : nysus OK, thanks for the tip. Sorry for the confusion. Still kind of new to making open source contributions and it's easy for me to overlook some obvious stuff like this. I'll fix this up when I get a chance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 9, 2004 - 19:06 : Dries Please do, because this being a new feature, it has no chance getting committed to the DRUPAL-4-5 branch. The DRUPAL-4-5 branch is in bugfix-mode. New features go into CVS HEAD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 9, 2004 - 22:32 : Dries There is quite a bit of duplicated code in the patch. Maybe it can be simplified (using a function)? Either way, it is a little weird. I haven't tried the path, and I'm not sure I understood the description. It's somewhat vague. Is the book module exporting multiple blocks that are nearly identical, yet have different display behavior? If so, why not add a simple block configuration setting to the original book block? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 10, 2004 - 02:51 : nysus Dries, Yes, there is some code that can be factored out and some general cleaning up that can be done. It was a little tricky to write so I left it kind of ragged around the edges until I'm sure there are no bugs. It has worked very well on 4.5.1 but I obviously need to update it to work with cvs. I'll be on that soon. As far as what it does: 1) For every new book that a user creates, a new block is associated with it. So if you create "Book A", "Book B", "Book C", you will get three new blocks visible on the block administration page called "Book A", "Book B", "Book C". The original "Book Navigation" block is still there, too. The functionality of the "Book Navigation" block is not affected at all by this patch. 2) If Book A's block is enabled, the block containing its menu will appear not only when a node within Book A is viewed, but at all times (unless the user suppresses it on certain pages with the "path" feature). When any node is that is NOT in Book A is viewed, Book A's menu still appears but it is fully collapsed. When a node that DOES belong to Book A is viewed, Book A's Book menu expands accordingly. 3) The user can also enable Book B & C's block, and have their menus appear in a block at all times as well. 4) If none of the book's blocks are enabled by the user, the module will behave just as it did without the patch. That is, when the "Book Navigation" block is enabled, the only time any book menu will appear is when a book node is being viewed. 5) It's important to note (and this was the tricky part to write) that if both the "Book Navigation" block is enabled and "Book A" is enabled, they will play nice with each other and not do nasty things like create the same book menu twice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 10, 2004 - 05:51 : nysus Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/book_20.patch (5.37 KB) Andre, Attached is a new patch that will resolve the problem of the block-specific stuff showing on the block configuration form. Let me know if you spot any other bugs. If it looks good to you, I'll go to work making the code look leaner and prettier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 10, 2004 - 07:26 : nysus Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/book_21.patch (4 KB) Dries, Andre: Here is a new and improved streamlined version of the patch. Have a look if you get a chance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 10, 2004 - 08:11 : nysus Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/book_22.patch (4.15 KB) Found a bug in the last version that would cause the block to jump to a different location. I think this should do it. Everything appear to work well (famous last words). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 10, 2004 - 14:49 : andremolnar Steve: bugs appear to be gone, and I didn't run across any other errors. This is functioning exactly as described. everyone: I personally would encourage support for this functionality. Book is a powerful navigation building tool in a site, not only with its ability to move next and back through a hierarchy of pages - but also its ability to build the appropriate navigation block without further user intervention (unlike the admin features in the menu module or taxonomy). The most frequently cited complaint about the book module is its inflexibility when it comes to when and where the block shows up. I also frequently hear requests for the ability to show multiple book blocks at the same time. Up until now the best alternatives suggested required users to do a hack (e.g. build a custom block that calls such and such a hook). Most abandon their request at that point because its over their heads. With this patch all those requests are covered and more. Now all books can automatically have their own block and admins can easily decide when and where each of those individual blocks show up (left right, up down) and coupled with the new configuration features of the block module - its very easy for admins to decide on which individual pages a block will show up. I would be interested what other have to say about this feature. My only reservation (which is minor compared to the benefits of the functionality offered) is that there is no way to turn this functionality off. i.e. The default behaviour is to build individual blocks for each book. If there could be a way to toggle this feature on and off somewhere - it would be perfect. Still, AS IS - this is a major improvement and offers great flexibility to admins and site creators. andre ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 10, 2004 - 15:04 : Anonymous Andre, Thanks for the feedback on the usefulness of this module. Glad I could pitch in and help. I agree about the inability to turn the feature on/off and I was thinking about that myself. I think it could easily be accomplished by creating a checkbox in the "book navigation" block individual configuration's settings. Call it "Enable individual book blocks." When enabled, the individual book blocks will appear on the block administration menu. One question: Where would the state of this checkbox get saved? Has Drupal moved away from serializing data in the data base? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 10, 2004 - 18:36 : Dries I'm afraid that 'Enable individual book blocks.' is not descriptive/clear at all. Are you suggesting a setting to toggle between 'show block on all pages' and 'show block on book pages only'? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 10, 2004 - 19:45 : nysus Dries, No. Andre and I suggest a setting within the "Book Navigation" cofiguration page, that would toggle whether or not individual books appear on the list of all blocks on the block administration page. Hence the name 'Enable individual book navigation blocks.' The help text for this checkbox might read something like: "By default, a book's navigation block is visible only when a page from that book is being viewed. Check this box if you want more control over where and when an book's navigation block is visible. You will then be able to control the book's navigation block location and visibility settings on the "admin/block" page." Hope this makes it pretty clear. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 10, 2004 - 20:08 : Dries I understand what you are trying to do, but not how you are trying to do it, or how the setting is supposed to work. I guess I'll have to try it when a new patch lands. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 09:52 : nysus Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/book_23.patch (5.02 KB) Alright, fellas, I'm proud to unveil my crowning achievement in the open source development world (no big deal to most of you guys but pretty good for a hack like me). Thanks for all the input so far. It's been helpful. I've streamlined the heck out of it per Dries suggestion and I've created an option to turn this functionality on an off per Andre's suggestion. Does this look good to you guys? Anything else I have to fix or improve? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 13:02 : Dries I tried the patch. It works great but to me, the 'Give books their own block' settings seems to be redundant. Why not export the current book navigation block, along with an additional block for each book? Looks a lot simpler to me. I think I spotted a bug: orphaned book pages (or possibly book pages that are unpublished) appear to be getting book navigation blocks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 17:34 : nysus I'll see if I can fix the bug. Might be tricky. But I don't understand your recommendation to "export the current book navigation block, along with an additional block for each book". Can you expand on this thought? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 18:06 : nysus Dries, I am unable to duplicate the bug. I have three orphaned pages. I also tried unpublishing some pages. But as far as I can tell, the patch works as expected. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 19:00 : Dries If you can't reproduce the problem, chances are my node/book table is somewhat fubar. As for the configuration option. I suggest removing it and to always make these new blocks available on the /admin/block configuration screen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 19:52 : moshe weitzman I am hoping that we maintain the option to keep the behavior where the appropriate book block only shows up when its book page viewed. this is a nice, tidy arrangement. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 20:03 : nysus Yes, if you don't enable any of the individual book blocks, the a book's block (i.e. navigation menu) will only appear when a page in a book is viewed. In other words, you have the option to have the book block act like this patch isn't even installed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 20:54 : Dries I guess I'll have to try the patch again, because I don't understand why it works like this -- or at least, why it can't be made simpler. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 21:13 : nysus Can you be more specific? Why it works like what? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 21:24 : nysus Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/book_24.patch (4.1 KB) This patch reverses a change made in the last patch which required a user to enable individual book block before they could enable any individual book blocks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 11, 2004 - 21:41 : andremolnar As I mentioned earlier I am *fine* with either version of this patch as long as it makes it to core. But, as I said earlier, I clearly think the preference for admins would be to have the option to enable or disable this functionality. BTW - if this does make it in, I would be happy to create a Handbook page that describes the new features - something like "how to build robust site navigation using the book module". (on or after December 17th). andre ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 12, 2004 - 12:11 : Anonymous I am not at all happy with these features. They are incosistant, confusing and should use exising methods and UIs. May main concern is the incosistancy: it is confusing, will require extra attention with each core code change, adds extra logic to the core, and is not re-useable. so here are my questions: 1) why do we not use the menu system and apis to build and adminster the trees? Saves code, does not add extra UIs, and gives users more power. 2) why do we need that extra showing logic? a book block should not get exeptional if clauses, it should use the existing path setting methods on block admin. extra logic is confusing for administrators (hey, i set the path so that the book-block should show up here, but it does not, why?) we should really not provide extra logic in the block hook, but should rather use default settings in block admin (the book could fill the bookblock sql cells with custom paths, for example) 3) we should avoid extra UIs. We already have far too much, and far too much different ones. Please rather improve the block admin, than add new separate interfaces. 4) why do book blocks need al these expeptions in the first place? If they are so exeptional, we could consider not using blocks, but something else, like in-line book layout (pages with the index etc) 5) why did you not choose for a general, standard, block gerneation API? that way modules, such as taxonomy, image gallery, weblinks, article, etc can reuse it and introduce block gernation. All that sayd, i like the idea of this functionality, but i fear for a great useability downfall if we start introducing all sorts of exeptions for all sorts of modules. Because now chances are very big that taxonomy, image gallery etc will need to introduce other UIs, other code, new methods and new documentation, if they too want some sort of better block handling. so a -1 from me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 12, 2004 - 12:12 : Bèr Kessels ^^--- That was me (bèr kessels) forgot to log in..... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 12, 2004 - 12:34 : nysus I'm not going to pretend I can argue if my patch does or does not fit well into Drupal's larger architecture. My motivation for writing it is that I had an immediate need to create an easy way to make it easy for users to create menus. I'll let others decide whether or not the patch has merit from the big picture perspective. But if it doesn't, why not just use it for its immediate benefits and then throw it away when something better comes along? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 12, 2004 - 13:01 : Dries My summary is this: +1 on the functionality, -1 on the implementation. The code itself is good, but the usability/integration is not. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 12, 2004 - 13:13 : nysus When you say "usability" is that from the user's perspective or the code maintainers? I'm guessing it's the latter but I'm unsure. What about the idea of using the patch until a more permanent solution comes along? Yes, it's much better to live in a home with indoor plumbing but why not use the outhouse while you wait for a toilet to get installed? Or are there other considerations I'm overlooking that would make this a bad idea? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 12, 2004 - 13:20 : Goba nysus it is just generally against the Drupal philosophy to add improperly implemented functionality until something better comes along. There even used to be ocassions in Drupal releases, when some functionality was removed (not fixed) for a release, because its implementation was not adequate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 12, 2004 - 13:55 : Dries Usability for the user. The extra setting on the block configuration page is both confusing and awkward. I don't understand why things must be configured/enabled that way (see my and Ber's previous comments on this issue). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 12, 2004 - 14:03 : nysus Well, just for the record, I reversed that functionality per your suggestion and uploaded the patch. The indiviudal book blocks now appear automatically. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 13:56 : Bèr Kessels Hi, I am sure you can make not only simpler, but better usefull for admins and users. All you need to do is use the menus for this. i.e. make a menu entry for each book page. For each book make a menu on level 0, without a parent. that way they become a seoprate menu, each with an own block. it saves code, makes things more consistent, and most important, uses drupal functionality where it should. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 14:50 : nysus Ber, Are you suggesting that for every single book page that a menu item be created? That's really not practical. That was my main motivation for writing this patch: to make it easy to put links, not necessarily related to one another, into a block. Any more pages than 10 and the sheer tedium of the job would prevent anyone from ever doing that. The menu.module is great, but adding new menu items is far from quick and painless. I just added about 10 to my menu for different taxonomies on my site and it wasn't fun. Plus, if you do as you suggest, there is also the problem of the book showing up twice. It will be generated by the menu and then it will be generated again by the book module which is programmed to design a block. You'd have to put some logic in the book.module _block hook to try to anticipate if a user has enabled a book in the menu. That wouldn't be pretty code. I'm all for putting automatic generation of book navigation blocks as part of the menu module. It does make more sense to have it there. But it forces me to ask the question: "Then why do we currently have code in the book module that generates a menu? Shouldn't that belong in the menu.module, too?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 13, 2004 - 22:31 : killes(a)www.drop.org I think what Ber is trying to say is that you can write a contrib module that monitors the changes to the book table and creates menu items automatically. nodeapi is your friend. I would also prefer this solution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 15, 2004 - 16:39 : Anonymous "Then why do we currently have code in the book module that generates a menu? Shouldn't that belong in the menu.module, too?" Because it's old code. It would be nice if book.module generated this block using its _menu hook, so that the admin would have a few options in terms of configuration. Plus, if you do as you suggest, there is also the problem of the book showing up twice. It will be generated by the menu and then it will be generated again by the book module which is programmed to design a block. No. The old code which manually builds a block in book.module would be removed. Book blocks would only be generated by the menu. This would also have the added benefit of allow the administrator to easily place a book in an appropriate spot in the menu tree, while still allowing the possibility of displaying it in a separate block. Because of menu caching, I don't expect a large performance hit for creating the menu items. That was my main motivation for writing this patch: to make it easy to put links, not necessarily related to one another, into a block. It sounds like instead of (mis)using book.module, your time would be better spent in a usability improvement to menu.module so it's easier to do this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 16, 2004 - 06:55 : nysus Thanks for the feedback and input. I appreciate it. However, I would also appreciate if you took more care to avoid the condescending tone in your post: It sounds like instead of (mis)using book.module, your time would be better spent in a usability improvement to menu.module so it's easier to do this. It's really quite unnecessary and off-putting. Though it won't stop me from contributing to Drupal in the future, I'm sure others would be really turned off by such a patronizing comment and it could dissuade them. I'd like the Drupal community to be a welcoming and friendly place that will inspire people to contribute, not discourage them. Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 16, 2004 - 10:07 : Bèr Kessels nyesus, Please do not start /that/ discussion here. :) Drupal community is known fo being direct, maybe because of the big number of western-Europeans attending, maybe because of other reasons. No-one commented that you are wasting your time. But the commentor was telling you somthing likethis: "If you would follow the previous sugeestions, your added feature would be much better appreciated, and will probably work much better for you too". He/she was by no means telling you to stop your silly coding, or anything in that line. He/She only wanted to show you the obvious and better direction. We often deal with issues that add some feature, and a complete new UI, because the author does not like, or cannot use the existing UIs and features. This is nogt good, because if that same author would have spend his/her time on improving that existing functionality or UI (improving is not neccesarily the same as extending!!) that code and time would benefit all much better. Thats what the commentor tried to say. And so is it here: If you dislike the way the books handle the blocks, and if you do not want to use the menu, because you do not like its UI, then do not add another UI and more features, but rather merge these, and improve the parts (in the menu) you dislike. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 16, 2004 - 10:35 : Dries We can worry about the menu integration later. Let's focus on the new option's usability/interaction design first. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 16, 2004 - 14:51 : nysus I understand what the commenter was saying and like I said, I appreciate and understand it. I'm not upset and I'm not looking for an argument, I was just being direct as well. :) As part of the Drupal community (albeit a minor player), all I'm saying is that I would like to see folks not have a tin ear to the humanity in all of us. It will help make Drupal an even stronger community and attract even more talented developers. Human interaction is part of the development process. Whether we like it or not, we must cope and deal with it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 18, 2004 - 09:54 : Dries I thought some more about this and am starting to believe that integration with the menu system should take priority. Here are common cool scenario's: I want to create a separate navigation block for the 'Drupal handbook'. I want to add a menu item called 'handbook' to the user block. That is, I want the book navigation to be part of the existing user navigation block. I want to add a menu item called 'handbook' to the top-level navigation menu. How would that work from a user's point of view? What do I have to click and where to configure this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 21, 2004 - 18:47 : andremolnar I was actually thinking about the same thing last night (must have been something in the arctic air). 2. I want to add a menu item called 'handbook' to the user block. That is, I want the book navigation to be part of the existing user navigation block. 3. I want to add a menu item called 'handbook' to the top-level navigation menu. This is already possible (to a certain extent) with the current Book.module and Menu.module - A 'Books' menu item is created in the user navigation by having the Book.module enabled. Menu.module allows you to enable/disable this menu item. Menu.module also allows you to re-name this menu item. But, this only helps if you only intend to have 1 book (or else the name 'Handbook' is misleading if the user finds more than 1 book listed). - so this isn't good enough (or is it). 1. I want to create a separate navigation block for the 'Drupal handbook'. This is what I was trying to figure out. Not just this, but a different way to do what Nysus was attempting. i.e. create a menu block for each and every book that is created. There is a way to write code that would (re)build a 'custom menu' on every add/edit/update to a book page - or book outline update. Custom menu's automatically have a block created for them. But, this I think would be a misleading use of the 'custom' menu - as the menu would not be custom if they are a part of core. So, I would think that two new constants could be added to the menu.inc file - MENU_BOOK_MENU - and MENU_BOOK_ITEM - each would behave as custom menu's, but would be reserved for books. These menu types should NOT show up in the Menu.module administration - because the administration of the book_menu items would be done by administering the book itself (adding an item, removing an item, moving an item up/down in the hierarchy, assigning parents etc.). However, the blocks that the book_menus would create would show up in the block administration (so users could enable/disable each block - and decide where on the site they show up). The existing book block logic would be removed. So the logic would be: If a creates a book in the book administration page - the Book.module automatically creates a new MENU_BOOK_MENU Any time a user adds to or updates or delets a book page - the entire book menu is deleted and recreated based on the hierarchy defined by the book itself. The blocks for each book would show up in block administration. Any thoughts - I know that this doesn't exactly address points 1 and 2 - but it could act as a first step. Is this approach a bad idea? It would add special conditions for the proposed book menu's - but books would be a special case. Even if people don't like this solution, maybe it will give someone a better idea. I'd love to hear them. andre ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 21, 2004 - 22:55 : Boris Mann +1 to this andre I had promised to put down my thoughts on this matter, as it relates to 1) primary and secondary links and how they are managed and 2) auto-generation of primary/secondary navigation based on book outlines So, for 1), we currently have functional-but-not-very-usable plain textfields to manage primary and secondary links. I would like to see menu.module used to control all navigation links, whether it is the navigation block or primary/secondary links. What is needed: a) default system menus labelled "primary" and "secondary" which would store; this is where modules could insert navigation b) support for full URLs (e.g. http://myexternaldomain.com) instead of just path 2) if we got 1 working, and andre does his book menus, this could get taken care of automatically. Basically, for brochureware/business/etc. sites that have static content, you could have a root book as one of the primary navigation links, and then the secondary links are generated automatically. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 22, 2004 - 21:02 : Dries I agree with Andre that the book module's integration with the menu system needs to be worked on. I support any effort that makes it easier to structure pages and that makes it easy to link pages/nodes from within a menu. However, I'm opposed to putting book module specific names in the menu system (eg. MENU_BOOK_MENU and MENU_BOOK_ITEM). I can imagine a handful of modules that want to maintain a menu tree (or part thereof) so I'm in favor of generic names. I'd have to read up on the menu system code, but last time I checked there was a MENU_MODIFIABLE_BY_ADMIN flag. You could choose not to set this flag for the menu items generated by the book module. Maybe it's already possible to implement to implement Andre's suggestion without having to modify/extend the menu system. Are you exploring this path? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 24, 2004 - 10:01 : andremolnar I've had a few spare hours to work on this. I've started to cobble together a solution - but in doing so I discovered a bug in the menu module (for which I will submit a seperate issue - if one doesn't already exist). The principal I suggested works. I added some code to the book module that creates custom menu's (MENU_CUSTOM_MENU with MENU_CUSTOM_ITEMs) for each Book that exists in a site. This is just as a proof of concept - I chose this menu type to start with because they automatically have a block created for them in admin/block (which is ultimatly the functionality we want). I ran a test and the menus are created as expected - the blocks are also created. But when I tested the menu blocks by enabling them I ran into a problem. It seems as though the menu system does not expand/explode sub menu items if the node type is book. I'm not sure why this is, and I haven't traced the source code yet - I thought I would ask if anyone has intimate knowledge of the menu system if they can point me in the right direction. No patch attached because until that problem is fixed this proposed change won't fly :( andre ------------------------------------------------------------------------ December 24, 2004 - 11:11 : Dries Just a wild guess: maybe it doesn't work because the book module's URI scheme is not hierarchical? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 7, 2005 - 10:45 : andremolnar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/book_module_1.patch (5.1 KB) I finally took some time out to do some work on this. As mentioned in a post to dev the problem I was having with menus not expanding/contracting properly was some crud in my database. Once that was cleared up my changes worked fine. I am attaching a patch for comments and for the brave willing to give it a test drive. History: This thread and http://drupal.org/node/15198 and http://drupal.org/node/15153 node/15198 has a patch that is required for this patch to work. What this does: Pretty straight forward. Any time a user adds/updates/deletes book or book pages (including via outline) - a function is called to create a new menu for each book. Any existing book menus are wiped out and then the new book menus are inserted - and the system menu is rebuilt to reflect the changes. The menus created consist of type MENU_MODULE_MENU and MENU_MODULE_ITEM. These menus show up in the menu/admin page so that admins can be aware of them, but the menu types are not editable via menu/admin (all changes are handled by the book module). Since the menus are in the menu table, the menu_block() hook handles the creation of the blocks for each of them. The blocks can then be administered in the usual ways via the block/admin interface. KNOWN ISSUE: (suggested solutions welcome) Since the menu table is updated on every change to books - the blocks associated with the menus are also recreated with default settings (i.e. disabled, and with no path or throttle settings) requiring a user to take an extra step and re-configure the book blocks for viewing on their site. I think this is unacceptable. For the casual user of the book module that only has a single book that doesn't change often, this would not be a big deal. But, if anyone wanted to make use of book module to handle dynamic site navigation this would create more work than it saves. Looking forward: If the block generation issue can be solved in a tidy way, this patch could allow users to use book to handle all their site navigation generation needs. Also, this patch could allow for the removal of a large chunk of code in the book module dedicated to building its own block via the block system. I left it there for now because I suppose there may be those out there that want to have book.module work the way book.module always worked (only show the book block when viewing a book page). Even so, since each book would have its own block, an admin could specify when and where the block shows via admin/block. I would appreciate feedback. If nothing else I hope this gives someone some new ideas. I'll continue to work on the block regeneration issue. andre ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 7, 2005 - 10:47 : andremolnar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/book_module_2.patch (4.98 KB) sorry - here's a patch with prefered line breaks. andre ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 7, 2005 - 16:47 : nysus Andre, I've been meaning to give this a throrough look when I get a chance. Hopefully this weekend. ---Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 02:02 : andremolnar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/book_module_3.patch (6.66 KB) Here is an updated patch. Same comments as followup 51 - except that the known issue has been resolved. This changes book module so that any action taken on a book, including adding new books or book pages will create a menu in the menu system for that book - and thus create blocks for those menus that can be administered in the usual ways. This is my first attempt at a major patch to core - comments are welcome I will be happy to update documentation once revisions to the code have been taken care of. andre ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 02:53 : andremolnar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/book_module_4.patch (6.17 KB) Sorry - would be nice if I removed some debugging code - ;-) also previous patch also would have introduced a need for a change to the menu table that isn't required yet. This patch is a correct version andre ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 19:16 : Dries The menu is recreated every time a book page is updated. I believe this is unwanted behavior because it requires the book block to be reconfigured upon every update. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 19:32 : andremolnar The menu is indeed re-created with every book page edit - because if the book page title changes the menu needs to reflect this change. The book block re-configuration is not required by the user. The code stores this information and re-sets the block settings. I will see if I can test for 'title change' before forcing the re-build of the menu - It would save a bit of processing power. andre ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 20:21 : andremolnar Took another at this - and it turns out that I already have a check to see if title or weight change (rather - they already existed in the module and I used them). andre ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 02:22 : andremolnar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/book_module_6.patch (7.42 KB) Feedback received indicated that the original block generation code in this module should be removed - since this patch hands block generation off to the menu and block system. This patch removes that code. BUT - It should be noted, that in order to have book blocks only show up on pages of node type book - an additional patch found at http://drupal.org/node/16074 is required. andre -- View: http://drupal.org/node/14120 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/14120

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Testers needed: Node Type filtering in taxonomy on Drupal 4.5
by Prometheus6 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: taxonomy.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: matteo Reported by: matteo Updated by: Prometheus6 Status: patch How about: taxonomy/$foo,$bar taxonomy/$foo,$bar/forum taxonomy/$foo,$bar/forum,book taxonomy/$foo,$bar/forum/feed Prometheus6 Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 25, 2004 - 16:20 : matteo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/taxonomy_nodetype_filter.patch (5.46 KB) The attached fix wants to add a new feature to taxonomy.module: the ability to filter data also on node types. This is a need when you have to share one vocabulary between multiple node types. One example is the vocabulary 'Geography', containing all Cities and Regions. You could have events, stories and other custom made node types, sharing this vocabulary. The need arises when you want to see only events of a certain region; if you filter only on region, you'll see also stories and the other custom node types. The new syntax is the following: taxonomy/term/term1,term2,term3(nodetype1,nodetype2)/........ to filter based on three terms (in OR each others) and on two different node types or taxonomy/term/term1+term2+term3(nodetype1,nodetype2)/........ to filter based on three terms (in AND each others) and on two different node types The rest of the syntax for taxonomy/term remains the same, and the patch works also for taxonomy feed. Node types are tested for validity. You can specify one or more node types; if you omit node types, normal term filtering is issued. Feedbacks and help testing this patch is needed; personally, I think this would improve temendously taxonomy functionalities, and hope this will be committed to Drupal core. Feel free to contact me by mail: m dot ferrari at tiscali dot it Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 25, 2004 - 16:25 : moshe weitzman see http://drupal.org/node/5040 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 25, 2004 - 16:46 : matteo I agree with you that this is an old story, but nothing has been committed to 4.5, that introduced also a new taxonomy syntax. My patch has also some pluses: - it is specific for 4.5 and takes care of the new taxonomy syntax - it lets you specify multiple node types - syntax is clean Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 19, 2005 - 17:05 : robclay Will this work with 4.5.2? If so - I am looking for exactly this funcionality! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 00:43 : matteo I'll work on a port for 4.5.2 hopefully next week... I'll keep you informed. Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 23, 2005 - 18:19 : matteo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/taxonomy_nodetype_452.patch (4.43 KB) Here is the patch that adds nodetype filtering capabilities to 4.5.2 taxonomy module. Syntax is backwards compatible, so if you plan not to use node type filtering, syntax does not change at all. (see previous postings in this thread) I would need extensive testing and feedback... and hope this functionality will be included into Drupal core. Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 23, 2005 - 18:38 : Steven New features only get added to the HEAD branch... you'll have to update your patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 01:56 : matteo Ok, Steven, I'll rewrite the patch also for CVS.... Thanks Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 04:16 : matteo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/taxonomy_nodetype_CVS.patch (4.05 KB) Here is the patch for Drupal CVS. I noticed the great addition of node_rewrite_sql... very powerful... I'm starting extensive testing on the patch, and I really woul like it to be added to core taxonomy, because it becomes a must for several sites... Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 09:43 : moshe weitzman I'd rather see this done universally (not just for taxonomy urls) using the new sql rewrite capability. specifically, some code will implement the rewrite_sql hook and look for a querystring param &ntype=blog,story and then inject the proper WHERE clause. this will be very useful for tracker, home page, taxonomy urls, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 10:59 : Dries Before looking at the code (which violates Drupal's coding style), what do people think about the proposed URL scheme? Can anyone tell me why we use 'taxonomy/term/$foo' and not just 'taxonomy/$foo'? How about we change that to: taxonomy/all/$foo (or taxonomy/$foo) taxonomy/forum/$foo taxonomy/forum,book/$foo ... instead of the proposed URL scheme? It looks slightly more readable to me. (Does anyone know what 'synonyms' are for, and whether they could solve this problem? Really, I have no idea what these are for, even after having read the documentation.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 11:15 : jvandyk Synonyms are useful for things like organisms, which have both a common name and a scientific name. That's the idea of synonyms, not necessarily the Drupal implementation of synonyms, which we plan to use but are not yet using. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 11:57 : Steven Can anyone tell me why we use 'taxonomy/term/$foo' and not just 'taxonomy/$foo'? I believe this is because when the URL changes were discussed, there was talk of a 'taxonomy/vocabulary' page which would display an overview of a vocabulary. But I think that role has already been filled by a contributions module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 12:05 : Prometheus6 If taxonomy/$foo retrieves all node types then I think taxonomy/$foo/forum taxonomy/$foo/forum,book is the cleanest looking way to be specific. Give it a fixed position because it will always be there whereas the node type may or may not be. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 12:24 : Steven This could be hard to implement as $foo is a multi-var path. e.g. "taxonomy/terms/1" "taxonomy/terms/1/1" "taxonomy/terms/1/0/feed" etc. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/12114 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/12114

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Testers needed: Node Type filtering in taxonomy on Drupal 4.5
by Steven 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: taxonomy.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: matteo Reported by: matteo Updated by: Steven Status: patch This could be hard to implement as $foo is a multi-var path. e.g. "taxonomy/terms/1" "taxonomy/terms/1/1" "taxonomy/terms/1/0/feed" etc. Steven Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 25, 2004 - 22:20 : matteo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/taxonomy_nodetype_filter.patch (5.46 KB) The attached fix wants to add a new feature to taxonomy.module: the ability to filter data also on node types. This is a need when you have to share one vocabulary between multiple node types. One example is the vocabulary 'Geography', containing all Cities and Regions. You could have events, stories and other custom made node types, sharing this vocabulary. The need arises when you want to see only events of a certain region; if you filter only on region, you'll see also stories and the other custom node types. The new syntax is the following: taxonomy/term/term1,term2,term3(nodetype1,nodetype2)/........ to filter based on three terms (in OR each others) and on two different node types or taxonomy/term/term1+term2+term3(nodetype1,nodetype2)/........ to filter based on three terms (in AND each others) and on two different node types The rest of the syntax for taxonomy/term remains the same, and the patch works also for taxonomy feed. Node types are tested for validity. You can specify one or more node types; if you omit node types, normal term filtering is issued. Feedbacks and help testing this patch is needed; personally, I think this would improve temendously taxonomy functionalities, and hope this will be committed to Drupal core. Feel free to contact me by mail: m dot ferrari at tiscali dot it Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 25, 2004 - 22:25 : moshe weitzman see http://drupal.org/node/5040 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 25, 2004 - 22:46 : matteo I agree with you that this is an old story, but nothing has been committed to 4.5, that introduced also a new taxonomy syntax. My patch has also some pluses: - it is specific for 4.5 and takes care of the new taxonomy syntax - it lets you specify multiple node types - syntax is clean Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 19, 2005 - 23:05 : robclay Will this work with 4.5.2? If so - I am looking for exactly this funcionality! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 06:43 : matteo I'll work on a port for 4.5.2 hopefully next week... I'll keep you informed. Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 00:19 : matteo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/taxonomy_nodetype_452.patch (4.43 KB) Here is the patch that adds nodetype filtering capabilities to 4.5.2 taxonomy module. Syntax is backwards compatible, so if you plan not to use node type filtering, syntax does not change at all. (see previous postings in this thread) I would need extensive testing and feedback... and hope this functionality will be included into Drupal core. Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 00:38 : Steven New features only get added to the HEAD branch... you'll have to update your patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 07:56 : matteo Ok, Steven, I'll rewrite the patch also for CVS.... Thanks Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 10:16 : matteo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/taxonomy_nodetype_CVS.patch (4.05 KB) Here is the patch for Drupal CVS. I noticed the great addition of node_rewrite_sql... very powerful... I'm starting extensive testing on the patch, and I really woul like it to be added to core taxonomy, because it becomes a must for several sites... Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 15:43 : moshe weitzman I'd rather see this done universally (not just for taxonomy urls) using the new sql rewrite capability. specifically, some code will implement the rewrite_sql hook and look for a querystring param &ntype=blog,story and then inject the proper WHERE clause. this will be very useful for tracker, home page, taxonomy urls, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 16:59 : Dries Before looking at the code (which violates Drupal's coding style), what do people think about the proposed URL scheme? Can anyone tell me why we use 'taxonomy/term/$foo' and not just 'taxonomy/$foo'? How about we change that to: taxonomy/all/$foo (or taxonomy/$foo) taxonomy/forum/$foo taxonomy/forum,book/$foo ... instead of the proposed URL scheme? It looks slightly more readable to me. (Does anyone know what 'synonyms' are for, and whether they could solve this problem? Really, I have no idea what these are for, even after having read the documentation.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 17:15 : jvandyk Synonyms are useful for things like organisms, which have both a common name and a scientific name. That's the idea of synonyms, not necessarily the Drupal implementation of synonyms, which we plan to use but are not yet using. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 17:57 : Steven Can anyone tell me why we use 'taxonomy/term/$foo' and not just 'taxonomy/$foo'? I believe this is because when the URL changes were discussed, there was talk of a 'taxonomy/vocabulary' page which would display an overview of a vocabulary. But I think that role has already been filled by a contributions module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 18:05 : Prometheus6 If taxonomy/$foo retrieves all node types then I think taxonomy/$foo/forum taxonomy/$foo/forum,book is the cleanest looking way to be specific. Give it a fixed position because it will always be there whereas the node type may or may not be. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/12114 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/12114

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Testers needed: Node Type filtering in taxonomy on Drupal 4.5
by Prometheus6 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: taxonomy.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: matteo Reported by: matteo Updated by: Prometheus6 Status: patch If taxonomy/$foo retrieves all node types then I think taxonomy/$foo/forum taxonomy/$foo/forum,book is the cleanest looking way to be specific. Give it a fixed position because it will always be there whereas the node type may or may not be. Prometheus6 Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 25, 2004 - 16:20 : matteo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/taxonomy_nodetype_filter.patch (5.46 KB) The attached fix wants to add a new feature to taxonomy.module: the ability to filter data also on node types. This is a need when you have to share one vocabulary between multiple node types. One example is the vocabulary 'Geography', containing all Cities and Regions. You could have events, stories and other custom made node types, sharing this vocabulary. The need arises when you want to see only events of a certain region; if you filter only on region, you'll see also stories and the other custom node types. The new syntax is the following: taxonomy/term/term1,term2,term3(nodetype1,nodetype2)/........ to filter based on three terms (in OR each others) and on two different node types or taxonomy/term/term1+term2+term3(nodetype1,nodetype2)/........ to filter based on three terms (in AND each others) and on two different node types The rest of the syntax for taxonomy/term remains the same, and the patch works also for taxonomy feed. Node types are tested for validity. You can specify one or more node types; if you omit node types, normal term filtering is issued. Feedbacks and help testing this patch is needed; personally, I think this would improve temendously taxonomy functionalities, and hope this will be committed to Drupal core. Feel free to contact me by mail: m dot ferrari at tiscali dot it Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 25, 2004 - 16:25 : moshe weitzman see http://drupal.org/node/5040 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 25, 2004 - 16:46 : matteo I agree with you that this is an old story, but nothing has been committed to 4.5, that introduced also a new taxonomy syntax. My patch has also some pluses: - it is specific for 4.5 and takes care of the new taxonomy syntax - it lets you specify multiple node types - syntax is clean Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 19, 2005 - 17:05 : robclay Will this work with 4.5.2? If so - I am looking for exactly this funcionality! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 00:43 : matteo I'll work on a port for 4.5.2 hopefully next week... I'll keep you informed. Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 23, 2005 - 18:19 : matteo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/taxonomy_nodetype_452.patch (4.43 KB) Here is the patch that adds nodetype filtering capabilities to 4.5.2 taxonomy module. Syntax is backwards compatible, so if you plan not to use node type filtering, syntax does not change at all. (see previous postings in this thread) I would need extensive testing and feedback... and hope this functionality will be included into Drupal core. Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 23, 2005 - 18:38 : Steven New features only get added to the HEAD branch... you'll have to update your patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 01:56 : matteo Ok, Steven, I'll rewrite the patch also for CVS.... Thanks Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 04:16 : matteo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/taxonomy_nodetype_CVS.patch (4.05 KB) Here is the patch for Drupal CVS. I noticed the great addition of node_rewrite_sql... very powerful... I'm starting extensive testing on the patch, and I really woul like it to be added to core taxonomy, because it becomes a must for several sites... Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 09:43 : moshe weitzman I'd rather see this done universally (not just for taxonomy urls) using the new sql rewrite capability. specifically, some code will implement the rewrite_sql hook and look for a querystring param &ntype=blog,story and then inject the proper WHERE clause. this will be very useful for tracker, home page, taxonomy urls, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 10:59 : Dries Before looking at the code (which violates Drupal's coding style), what do people think about the proposed URL scheme? Can anyone tell me why we use 'taxonomy/term/$foo' and not just 'taxonomy/$foo'? How about we change that to: taxonomy/all/$foo (or taxonomy/$foo) taxonomy/forum/$foo taxonomy/forum,book/$foo ... instead of the proposed URL scheme? It looks slightly more readable to me. (Does anyone know what 'synonyms' are for, and whether they could solve this problem? Really, I have no idea what these are for, even after having read the documentation.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 11:15 : jvandyk Synonyms are useful for things like organisms, which have both a common name and a scientific name. That's the idea of synonyms, not necessarily the Drupal implementation of synonyms, which we plan to use but are not yet using. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 11:57 : Steven Can anyone tell me why we use 'taxonomy/term/$foo' and not just 'taxonomy/$foo'? I believe this is because when the URL changes were discussed, there was talk of a 'taxonomy/vocabulary' page which would display an overview of a vocabulary. But I think that role has already been filled by a contributions module. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/12114 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/12114

1 0

[drupal-devel] [feature] Testers needed: Node Type filtering in taxonomy on Drupal 4.5
by Steven 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: taxonomy.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: matteo Reported by: matteo Updated by: Steven Status: patch Can anyone tell me why we use 'taxonomy/term/$foo' and not just 'taxonomy/$foo'? I believe this is because when the URL changes were discussed, there was talk of a 'taxonomy/vocabulary' page which would display an overview of a vocabulary. But I think that role has already been filled by a contributions module. Steven Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 25, 2004 - 22:20 : matteo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/taxonomy_nodetype_filter.patch (5.46 KB) The attached fix wants to add a new feature to taxonomy.module: the ability to filter data also on node types. This is a need when you have to share one vocabulary between multiple node types. One example is the vocabulary 'Geography', containing all Cities and Regions. You could have events, stories and other custom made node types, sharing this vocabulary. The need arises when you want to see only events of a certain region; if you filter only on region, you'll see also stories and the other custom node types. The new syntax is the following: taxonomy/term/term1,term2,term3(nodetype1,nodetype2)/........ to filter based on three terms (in OR each others) and on two different node types or taxonomy/term/term1+term2+term3(nodetype1,nodetype2)/........ to filter based on three terms (in AND each others) and on two different node types The rest of the syntax for taxonomy/term remains the same, and the patch works also for taxonomy feed. Node types are tested for validity. You can specify one or more node types; if you omit node types, normal term filtering is issued. Feedbacks and help testing this patch is needed; personally, I think this would improve temendously taxonomy functionalities, and hope this will be committed to Drupal core. Feel free to contact me by mail: m dot ferrari at tiscali dot it Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 25, 2004 - 22:25 : moshe weitzman see http://drupal.org/node/5040 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ October 25, 2004 - 22:46 : matteo I agree with you that this is an old story, but nothing has been committed to 4.5, that introduced also a new taxonomy syntax. My patch has also some pluses: - it is specific for 4.5 and takes care of the new taxonomy syntax - it lets you specify multiple node types - syntax is clean Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 19, 2005 - 23:05 : robclay Will this work with 4.5.2? If so - I am looking for exactly this funcionality! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 20, 2005 - 06:43 : matteo I'll work on a port for 4.5.2 hopefully next week... I'll keep you informed. Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 00:19 : matteo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/taxonomy_nodetype_452.patch (4.43 KB) Here is the patch that adds nodetype filtering capabilities to 4.5.2 taxonomy module. Syntax is backwards compatible, so if you plan not to use node type filtering, syntax does not change at all. (see previous postings in this thread) I would need extensive testing and feedback... and hope this functionality will be included into Drupal core. Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 00:38 : Steven New features only get added to the HEAD branch... you'll have to update your patch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 07:56 : matteo Ok, Steven, I'll rewrite the patch also for CVS.... Thanks Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 10:16 : matteo Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/taxonomy_nodetype_CVS.patch (4.05 KB) Here is the patch for Drupal CVS. I noticed the great addition of node_rewrite_sql... very powerful... I'm starting extensive testing on the patch, and I really woul like it to be added to core taxonomy, because it becomes a must for several sites... Matteo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 15:43 : moshe weitzman I'd rather see this done universally (not just for taxonomy urls) using the new sql rewrite capability. specifically, some code will implement the rewrite_sql hook and look for a querystring param &ntype=blog,story and then inject the proper WHERE clause. this will be very useful for tracker, home page, taxonomy urls, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 16:59 : Dries Before looking at the code (which violates Drupal's coding style), what do people think about the proposed URL scheme? Can anyone tell me why we use 'taxonomy/term/$foo' and not just 'taxonomy/$foo'? How about we change that to: taxonomy/all/$foo (or taxonomy/$foo) taxonomy/forum/$foo taxonomy/forum,book/$foo ... instead of the proposed URL scheme? It looks slightly more readable to me. (Does anyone know what 'synonyms' are for, and whether they could solve this problem? Really, I have no idea what these are for, even after having read the documentation.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 24, 2005 - 17:15 : jvandyk Synonyms are useful for things like organisms, which have both a common name and a scientific name. That's the idea of synonyms, not necessarily the Drupal implementation of synonyms, which we plan to use but are not yet using. -- View: http://drupal.org/node/12114 Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/12114

1 0