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