Leaderboard

And a simple logo for $3,050, that's cool too! I would be rich by now if I could charge like that... Anyway I like the site. It's just perfect to scare the hell out of my clients so that they can be pleased by my prices...

Wow, I need to up my prices. US$5000 for a 4-9 page CMS website with no special features? Nice work if you can get it.

Basically go to http://modules.pw/, tick some boxes, put in your code and change the things up, which should be configurable. But this code is not too great to begin with as it'll require anyone using it to store the cpanel password unencrypted in the database or the file itself. ProcessHostingInfo.zip

If the select fields are Page fields you can use a function like this: function calculateProportions($field_name) { $pages = wire('pages'); $field = wire('fields')->get($field_name); // Only proceed if field is a Page field if($field->type->name !== 'FieldtypePage') return; // Get templates the field has been added to $tpls = $field->getFieldgroups(); // We need a page object to supply to some upcoming methods $p = new \ProcessWire\Page(); $inputfield = $field->getInputfield($p); // The options for the field $select_options = $inputfield->getSelectablePages($p); // Use whichever type of total suits you best... $total_pages = $pages->count("template=$tpls"); // pages that contain the field //$total_pages = $pages->count("$field_name!=''"); // pages where the field is not empty $out = array(); foreach($select_options as $select_option) { $count = $pages->count("$field_name=$select_option"); $proportion = $count / $total_pages; $out[$select_option->title] = $proportion; } // Function returns an array: option title => proportion return $out; } And for each question (Page field)... $results = calculateProportions('my_page_field_name'); If you are using FormBuilder with fields of the "Select" type you could modify the function to suit. I think you get the array of select options with... $form = $forms->get('my_form_name'); $select_options = $form->get('my_select_field_name')->getOptions();

I think the features of Lister Pro could be suitable. You can set permissions to any given role to access any given Lister, lock down which pages the Lister can display, use Actions to perform bulk field edits for selected pages, and also allow individual fields to be edited inline without needing to open pages for editing. In other words, it's pretty fantastic.

+1 for that suggestion. In the meantime, if you wanted to add that feature to your site you could copy the FieldtypeComments module to your /site/modules/ folder and edit the methods in CommentForm.php (because unfortunately the methods aren't hookable). You would add the honeypot inputfield in renderFormNormal() and renderFormThread(). And then check that the inputfield is empty in processInput(), changing empty() to !empty()... if($key = $this->options['requireSecurityField']) { if(!empty($data[$key])) return false; }

The tabs "Pages", "Setup", etc are just pages under the Admin branch of the tree. You can add your own pages here to make new tabs. To put content on that page you can use the Admin Custom Pages module. Or it's not difficult to create your own simple ProcessModule.

Most (all?) links made to individual replies/posts before the forum upgrade no longer work correctly in the new forum. This is frustrating because you have to hunt around for the actual reply that was referenced and reduces the usefulness of all the older posts that supply solutions to problems by linking to a specific reply. It seems like this should be possible to fix. Compare these two links to the same post, from the old forum and new forum: https://processwire.com/talk/topic/3474-admin-custom-pages-module/page-5#entry56657 https://processwire.com/talk/topic/3474-admin-custom-pages-module/?do=findComment&comment=56657 Can we get old links redirected or updated to the new syntax? Edit: what's worse is when you get this... When the new forum tries to be smart and make an iframe out of a broken link there seems to be no way to find out what thread/reply was linked to, even by inspecting the page source.

@Webrocker - RedirectMatch does not support flags, so [L] will not work. @biber - Please add the following under the existing RewriteEngine on directive: RewriteRule ^(.+).html$ /$1/ [L] Note that the QSA flag is not required here. Also note that I have added a trailing slash as that is the PW default. If you have removed trailing slashes on all your templates, then you can remove it here too, saving an additional redirect.

This week work continued on preparing 3.x (and 2.8.x) for release. One of the features of 3.x that we'd not yet covered in much detail was the multi-instance support. So the primary focus this week was in making sure we clarified and simplified some things in that respect. This post covers all the details. In addition we've also got some $session updates that we think you'll like! https://processwire.com/blog/posts/multi-instance-pw3/

My thoughts about pw: If you just started with pw, maybe you created your First Page and saw how pw Works and handles data you think uh yummi nice CMS. Well thats fine and correct,pw acts, feels and looks like a CMS. You then dig deeper into the API, you understand how the different fieldtypes are working and you get a good overview. You probably think at this point: could I use pw like a Database? You Set your first page relation, count the arrays and you Play with the Data and you think: WTF!? Is this still a CMS? The longer you use pw, the deeper understanding of the API, you finally realise which great,strong and powerfull toolset Ryan just handed right into your hands. At this particullar point the term CMS would not come to your mind anymore. PW could be used like phpMyAdmin, just create tables,rows and data and work with them, but a Way more easier without even knowig what MySQL really is. Some of you might know my Intranet Application i'm working on, this is all made with pw and some little template php scripting. The next days I will Show a Little preview of an App i'm also working on, and yes everything PW driven.

This module adds a "SEO" tab to every page where you can define a special title, description, keywords, etc. Try it http://aluminum-j4f.lightningpw.com/processwire/ Name: demo Pass: demo123 How to use You can choose between include automatically or use the following methods: $config->seo // includes all the default values and configuration settings // e.g.: $config->seo->title $config->seo->keywords $page->seo // includes all the default values mixed with the page related seo data // e.g.: $page->seo->title $page->seo->keywords // for rendering: $page->seo->render . . Screenshot Download You can download it in the modules repository: http://modules.processwire.com/modules/markup-seo/

I found this website to be very interesting take on pricing websites and other development tasks. http://howmuchtomake.com/ I will be referencing this link to my clients so that they can get a realistic view of how things are priced. Depending on where you live, this may or may not be much help to web developers/designers. Good Day.

Hi, I'd like to add an input field to the page comments that should act as a honey pot: if this field has a value, the comment will not be sent. From what I can tell from the documentation, currently the spam check is only possible with an external service or with JavaScript to apply a hidden input with a pre-defined name. To me relying on JS in order to enable a site's visitor to leave a comment seems wrong, so I'd like to go the other way: Hide the honeypot input visually so it won't get filled by (human) visitors. If a (dumb) bot fills in every input it finds with values, it'll tap also in the honey pot field -- and the spam comment will not be sent. Maybe this option could be added to the comment field's settings? Cheers, Tom

conventions sure..but we're talking about coolness

Hi Tom, this tip saved my night! After flushing the Firefox-cache now everything works fine - thanx a lot Günter

For me here your link works - no 404? I've had strange effects with .htaccess and local browser caching - make sure to flush all caches, or restart your browser and check again… cheers, Tom

Hi again. I think the problem is that you added the rules too late, somewhere down in the htaccess when PW is already involved. What you want is to catch the "wrong" requests as early as possible -- so add the rewrite rules for your old URL scheme at the beginning of the htaccess file: <IfModule mod_rewrite.c> RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / RewriteRule ^(.+).html$ /$1/ [L] </IfModule> ################################################################################################# # START PROCESSWIRE HTACCESS DIRECTIVES ... cheers, Tom

Hi, a bit difficult to say without seeing the complete .htaccess, but I think you need to add a "L" to the first rule. RedirectMatch 301 (.*)\.html$ http://pw.bielenberg-soerup.de$1/ [L] so if this rule is matched, no other redirects will happen afterwards. If you have querystrings, add [L,QSA] ("query string append") so that the new destination will receive the query parameters. And make sure that this rule is before the index.php rule which acts like a catch all -- everything (that hasn't been caught by other rules before) will be redirected to the index.php and the querystring is appended. Basically what you are saying with that rule is: "everything that ends with ".html" will be taken to the new location and be appended there with a slash at the end. Depending on your site/url structure this may be enough, or you need to add a more precice rule what to redirect. cheers Tom

Hello, all! I know that I haven't contributed much here, but I've used ProcessWire quite a bit over the past couple of years and have spent countless hours browsing these forums. Most of the questions I've had were adequately answered without needing to create threads of my own. So, for starters, thank you to Ryan and this community--you all are amazing and ProcessWire is a thing of beauty. My question revolves around something that I'm not actually even committed to yet. It would be the biggest project I've ever taken on, by far, and I have no doubt that ProcessWire could handle it, but I'm working through a list of considerations and this one has me doubting my own abilities. If I were to define some pretty specific user roles, each of which had a customized dashboard and one of which (let's call it "manager") could create, read, update, and delete users in the other roles, what would be the best approach to take to allow for batch editing from this customized dashboard? What I would love to have is a list of users that a manager could edit (search and filters would be available, but that's beyond the scope of this question), with checkboxes so the manager could select individual users. Because of the way this would be set up, all editable users would be using the same page template. When the manager has selected accounts, there should be an Edit option, which basically brings up a blank template with all available fields. The manager completes and submits this form and all of the selected accounts are updated. If a field is left blank, the original value remains in all selected accounts, otherwise it is overwritten by whatever the manager typed/selected. I've seen some discussion on things like this, and even a couple of batch-edit modules, but am just not sure if a scenario like this has been addressed. Any thoughts, ideas, or considerations? Thank you all!

Thank you, Robin! Lister Pro seems incredible and I'm actually ashamed that I hadn't given it more of a look. I guess I was approaching this like some of my smaller projects and wasn't giving enough thought to some of the paid modules. A project like this could definitely warrant it, though, and I imagine that module opens up a whole new world of possibilities. I'm going to do some thinking on this before I purchase it, but that is a great suggestion. Thank you again!

Finally! http://processwire.com/blog/posts/multi-instance-pw3/ Working just as described for me =) (site note: I've both installs running on 3.0.30)

As a simple example, let me show you the basic setup of a blog (simplified diagram of the blog profile I recommended above): It is a "UML like" diagram, where the yellow boxes are the templates, the blue ones are sample pages (they must be created in the Page Tree) based on the templates. Generally speaking whenever you can, you should set up parent/child relationships, because this is something ProcessWire handles well, out of the box. However, it is not possible to force all the required relationships into a tree, so we can also have "simple" one-to-one and one-to-many relationships via Attributes (Fields). A Field in ProcessWire has its associated "Input field type" (found under the Input tab of the field), which sets up the UI element used by the admin for the field. Quote: "Input field type: The type of field that will be used to select a page. Select one that is consistent with the single page vs. multi-page needs you chose in the "details" tab of this field..." Hope this helps. If not, I can mock up a similar diagram about your use case too. Answers to your questions: A1. Generally yes, but I recommend implementing something like you see above: parent/child for Books/Book, Categories/Category, Chapters/Chapter, etc.. and you can connect these via Attribute (Field) / InputField relationships. This is a much more flexible setup. A2. If I understand you correctly, you can do it if you use Attribute (Field) / InputField relationship, and by setting the field to "required". A3. Yes, a field. The simplest way to implement it is using the Options type: https://processwire.com/api/modules/select-options-fieldtype/ https://processwire.com/blog/posts/new-options-fieldtype-processwire-2.5.17/ Of course, you can also setup just another Field/InputField relationship, if you need more than a simple select. A4: Sure, it can: https://processwire.com/api/variables/ BTW, one more reading on the topic: https://medium.com/@clsource/understanding-processwire-templates-fields-and-pages-201aecd0a1a4#.gd0w6u9qw

for reference :

Thank you both for your answers. Sorry for my late response, but unfortunately I hadn't got the time to test until now. @Can Exactly that is the reason why I would prefer PW as middleware. Because it doesn't care. Turns out, I couldn't get any response, because I requested the JSON from a PW installation hosted on my local machine using MAMP. After uploading the installation to a server I get a response. I forgot about, that you could set the header content-type on a template basis. That is easier than setting it in the template file. I am running PW 3.0.28 devns and my template setup looks like the above example for now. Right now I am just experimenting if PW would fit as a good solution. @clsource Thank you for the useful resources. I haven't done anything with REST yet, but will have a closer look. Regards, Andreas

When a client asks for "a website" with "easy management", explaining that ProcessWire is "an awesome framework for building just about anything" feels plain wrong and is unlikely to yield desired results. On the other hand, when client (or fellow developer) does mention the need for "an application", "framework" or "software platform", it's good to be able to match those needs too. Personally I really like the fact that ProcessWire has the ability to be both and would like to avoid emphasizing either *too much* over the other. If I needed a CMS, there would be a huge amount of other options available, and if I simply wanted to build an application I could (for an example) turn to Zend Framework and get the job done.. and so on. What ProcessWire brings into this equation is a well-balanced combination of features from both worlds. Each part supports the other, eventually making it more than the sum of it's parts. I especially love how easy and fast built-in admin makes mocking up data structures -- in fact it's such a smooth experience that the times I've built mock data manually for HTML wireframes etc. have been almost nonexistent lately. I find it faster to make fully functional features using ProcessWire than writing dummy directly with editor. And that, in my opinion, is why it's so damn good. Not that I really needed to explain it to anyone here, but my point is mostly that I don't see ProcessWire simply as a CMF or CMS or application framework or whatever. It's all of these combined.. and that's a good thing. I hope we don't get stuck discussing which one it is when that question can't (and shouldn't) have one single correct answer

Greetings Everyone, When I started this topic a year ago, I proposed that ProcessWire be presented more like a framework than a CMS. Over the past year, as I have developed further with ProcessWire, my opinion has strengthened. This recent post by Ryan re-ignited the idea for me: (http://processwire.com/talk/topic/5066-creating-commercial-licensed-modules/?p=49389). It seems that a lot of the discussions around "comparisons" continue to be ProcessWire vs WordPress or vs Drupal or vs Joomla. After working with ProcessWire more, I feel even more strongly that the discussion should shift instead to be more like ProcessWire vs Laravel or vs Yii or vs CakePHP. As Ryan indicates in the above quote, ProcessWire is not comparable to WordPress in what and how you build with it. I have had numerous situations in recent months where I propose using ProcessWire for a project and explain that it is a CMF, emphasizing the framework part. In my own work, I have already shifted my presentation, describing ProcessWire as a framework. Still, clients start from the perspective that ProcessWire is equivalent to WordPress (and other regular CMSs). A shift in the discussion might help explain what the system is for, and adjust expectations for new users. It might help us in communicating with clients. And it might attract more attention for ProcessWire from the community of people looking for PHP frameworks but who tend to avoid "CMSs." Thanks, Matthew

ProcessWire is a content management framework, which is still a "framework", but more focused on a particular thing. Whereas the framework scope of CakePHP, Laraval, CodeIgniter, etc., is more broad and cover more territory. ProcessWire isn't meant as a replacement for one of those frameworks, but I think there are probably many instances where its focus might make it preferable. And an equal number of instances where the opposite is true as well. There's also something to be said for bringing the two together in some instances. Another big area of difference is that traditional frameworks enforce a particular approach to build on top of, whereas ProcessWire aims to be a lot more transparent, like jQuery. Frameworks set you up with a place to put your models, views and controllers, whereas ProcessWire puts in you in a plain PHP file (template file) that is given a location context ($page) and lets you take over from there. We think MVC is a good approach to take with ProcessWire template files, but don't enforce anything, as it's up to the developer. For better or worse, the possibilities are wide open in the same way they are with a PHP file on its own… though with a full CMF API at your disposal.

I think that's "you must move your PHP script outside site/templates" at a guess. I'm sure I remember something like you can't run other PHP scripts from inside the templates directory, so move that _php folder so it's at /site/_php, change the URLs and give it another go.