Leaderboard

Your points about this are all completely fair. It's up to you to integrate or reject the changes a PR does. Currently the latter however does not happen in a manner visible to the creator of the PR or anyone else looking at the PR. So they just stack up looking like they were never looked at. If you consider something not possible to be added (or even not possible in the near future) everyone is better off if the PR would be closed with a short note of the reasoning. PRs do not age well and it's better to close them than letting them sit until no longer mergeable. The closed PRs (and issues) are still searchable, so if people to their due diligence they'll see that things were rejected before, find related discussion if attached, …. If you're not happy with the code for a given change you can also help people come to a version you're happy with maintaining without needing to go code it yourself. This does even work for issues. One of the most encouraging responses to issues I know from other OSS projects is "Sounds good. PR welcome.". I rarely see that as a response to bigger feature requests, but on smaller incremental things making parts of the project better it's a good way to move the burden of actually fixing something off of the maintainer themself. If a PR is not of that kind it's totally fair to close it with something like "This is to big a change and needs upfront discussion before consideration.". You don't need to take the time of reviewing PRs in depth, when you already know you'll not merge from just the title/description/amount of changes/…. So in conclusion: Without a response from your side a open PR is dead weight in the context of the community helping you improve processwire. Someone did some work and now it's stuck. Even if the response is negative it'll give anyone involved context either to adjust and be fine with things not being added or next steps to get things integrated either by starting a needed discussion, changing the code or implementation or whatever else needs to be done before it could be merged. Given the fact PRs don't age well I also feel response should be reasonably timely – even if the merge actually happens at a later time. Take a year and the PR creator might have moved on or worked around it, the underlying code changed in the meantime so the PR is no longer easily mergeable, but the issue fixed by the PR might still be present. I know this well given I have two open PRs for processwire from 2017 – one small fix, one not as small feature. I hardly use processwire anymore by now.

@LostKobrakai In addition to what I've mentioned above, I openly admit I'm not great at PRs, if that's what you are looking for an admission of. I try and make up for it in other areas. Nobody is perfect and one area I have work to do is getting better with PRs. I stated earlier that this is a priority for 2021. I will revisit the PRs that you mentioned. Maybe some think it looks bad to have open PRs, but to me it looks like enthusiasm, ideas and potential. I consider it an honor anytime someone would want to contribute in this way. I actually think the majority of PRs have a lot of merit and like what I see. I almost never would say "no" and close a PR in the way you are suggesting, because I almost never would feel that way. Instead, I look for the same crossover of priorities and timing that I do when it comes to adding new features. I like having a solid repo of PRs because it's stuff that is available for when the time is right and stuff I can refer back to and know someone else is also interested. All open PRs are a "yes" in my mind and just a matter of timing. Though going forward my hope is to find more time to cover open PRs even before the timing is right, since the community has indicated this would be helpful in appearances. PRs only don't age well if taken as literal code, which is not the way I work with PRs. It doesn't matter to me if the literal code has not aged well or not because it's the ideas that matter much more. Whether PRs or not, and whether my own code or not, I go through code additions line by line multiple times, often writing and re-writing, both for QA and to fully understand the logic... so I do not care about age of any particular code. I just care about the idea, getting it right and being able to support it for the long term.

Just adding my voice from a user perspective. I am not a coder but a very happy user of processwire. For some of my sites I use the repeater matrix apporach which was done for me by someone from the forum, great work. End of last year I decided to buy access for one year to thrivethemes.com a builder for wp, simply because my business model needs landing pages, email squeeze pages, courses, etc. etc. I get sick already with the trouble of learning how to do stuff in thrivethemes environment. Everything I built so far is far slower than what I have in pw, but for pw I need developers everytime I need something new. The guy behind thirvethemes now has 70 people working, so there is a market for this type of stuff. I much prefer what I have in the repeatermatrix pw way of doing things, and would therefore be SOOOOOOO happy if this gets taken further and I beleive if a few of you coding ninjas would build the pw version of thrivethemes, there is a market waiting to be tapped into. Just my 2 cents! Love the discussion and the talent gathered here.

Hi @ryan thanks for the great info about the future of PW from last week and thanks for the condensed list above. I agree with most of what's already been said, but want to add some points as I've been heavily working on several mentioned areas over the last year. IMPORTANT: Admin Theme As mentioned I've been working on a better admin experience for quite a long time. This is an example screenshot of RockSkinUikit (which I'm not using any more): My key goals have always been easy things: Make it easy to change ONE main color which does look good in most situations (because the secondary colors are gray) Make it easy to change the Logo Make it easy to add custom CSS/LESS -------- I am now using a custom Admin Theme module AdminThemeRock that does look similar to what I've built using RockSkinUikit: Again: Custom color, custom logo, that's it! -------------- Another one: Custom color, custom logo: ----------- Another one changing only the main color (page tree example): ------------- Learnings: If the core changes, my theme breaks!! That's a no-go. I've had to add several custom hacks to my theme that make it out of sync with the core. But important parts of the theme have not been hookable, so that was my only option meaning I have to pull all changes from the core into my admin theme module. I guess nobody else is as crazy as I am and that might be one major reason why we have not seen any other admin theme modules... My theme uses the old admin theme repo sources, because we do not have any source files in the core... https://github.com/ryancramerdesign/AdminThemeUikit/ PLEASE add the source files the core or in a separate repo that we can fork or help with PRs!! I've added you to my private repo on github so that you can see all the changes that where necessary for getting everything to work. For all others, here's an example of how my dirty core hacks look like: getNav() and getSearchform() are hookable methods that I added to my module. I've also built a frontend module that I'm using on my sites. There I use a simple but very effective technique that uses one single render() method to render several code blocks that I organize in files: // file structure foo |-- foo1.php '-- foo2.php bar |-- bar1.php '-- bar2.php // code echo $uk->render("foo/foo1"); echo $uk->render("bar/bar2"); This keeps the files organised and makes it very easy to do custom modifications before or after a file is rendered: $wire->addHookBefore("RockUikit::render(foo/foo1)", function ... ); $wire->addHookBefore("RockUikit::render(bar/bar2)", function ... ); Using a dom parser like https://github.com/paquettg/php-html-parser would even make it possible to modify/add/remove single html elements of the returned output! Of course having custom hooks would be more elegant and performant, but I wanted to mention this option nevertheless. Support for a Dashboard-Page That's another big thing for all my pages. I don't want to show the pagetree to logged in users unless they really want to see it! Take this simple example: Or this more beautiful one: The latter is taken from the Dashboard module which proves the big demand of the community for such a feature! I don't want to talk bad about this module here, I've shared my thoughts in the related thread with @d'Hinnisdaël and should maybe go for a beer with him when all this covid thing is over, but IMHO the module has two major drawbacks that would not be necessary! 1) It introduces a whole new concept to the PW admin that is already there. The PW admin is built upon inputfields and it would be very easy to build a dashboard (or to be more precise, the dashboard widgets) using these existing tools. (this is built using inputfields). 2) Making the admin show the dashboard instead of the pagetree feels hacky in several situations. We've discussed that here: One problem is, for example, that the breadcrumbs do not work as expected any more. Clicking on breadcrumb "bar" in " foo / bar / foobar " would take you to the dashboard and not to " foo / bar ". ############################################ Would be great: Migrations I think the core and all modules could benefit greatly from easy api migrations like I have built in my RockMigrations module. It's far from perfect, it's not very well documented, but it does some things right in my opinion and that's why I have it in all my installs and nowadays have it as requirement for almost all my modules that I build. Why? Because I want to have my fields under control of GIT Because I want to write an easy setup file that creates all fields/templates/pages that I add to this codeblock Because I want to push changes to my live server without exporting fields via mouseclicks, then updloading json files, then going through a migration click-marathon again, when I can simply do git pull & modules refresh Because I want to be able to create reusable components easily. I know that one can do all that using the standard PW API and creating a custom module, but take this example and see how easy and clear things get when using RockMigrations (or even better a solid core migrations API): I've recently added an example module that shows how I'm using RockMigrations now: https://github.com/BernhardBaumrock/RockMigrations/blob/master/examples/MigrationsExample.module.php ############################################ Brainstorming: ProcessWire without DB We all love ProcessWire and it's tools, but there's one drawback: The great API is only available if we have fully installed version of ProcessWire available. That has been a problem for me when I tried to work on a module that installs ProcessWire automatically (PW Kickstart and now working on RockShell). Examples of such classes that might be useful even without a DB connection could be: WireData WireFileTools WireRandom WireTextTools WireHttp Sanitizer I know that there are several cases where DB settings are absolutely necessary (for example page data or sanitzier settings), but there are other frameworks, that show, that such a concept can work and make a lot of sense: https://nette.org/ One might argue, that this might be going too far... But if we are talking about the future of PW, why not thinking of something like this: // copy files to root folder include("index.php"); $wire->install([ 'user' => 'demo', 'pw' => $wire->random->alphanumeric("8-12"), ... ]); Or take another example: https://processwire.com/api/ref/wire-mail/ There's no reason why we need a running PW instance with a DB connection for such a code example. Of course I know that it's technically required in many places in the core, but maybe these places could be identified and removed in the future?! Or maybe PW could support noSQL or something? ############################################ Would be great: A better Date/Time/Range-Field (dream: Support for recurring dates/ranges) I've started a discussion here and as you can see the post got a lot of attention: ProcessWires date field is nice, but it is a PAIN to work with date ranges, to build calender-like applications, to get the proper entries from the DB, etc... Why? Because the only option right now is to add TWO date fields to one template and there the problems begin... What if you want to make sure that one date is after the other? What if you want to show all events of one month? There's a HUGE potential for bugs like "foodate < $lastOfMonth" should have been "foodate <= $lastOfMonth" How to get the timestamp of $lastOfMonth properly? An API like https://carbon.nesbot.com/ would be great! What if events can have a range (like from 2021-01-10 to 2021-01-15), but can also be a single day event (2020-12-24). What if an event is on one day but has a start and end time (2020-12-14 from 18:00 to 22:00)? What about timezones? How to do the proper formatting? Showing a date like this "2020-12-24 18:00 to 2020-12-24 22:00" is a lot worse than "2020-12-24 18:00 - 22:00". This gets even more complicated when you want to show the days... What if you want/need to handle recurring events...? ############################################ PageBuilder I've taken several runs on that topic and finally (?) found a good solution during development of one large project last year. My approach was to make a new Fieldtype similar to Repeater and RepeaterMatrix, but with some big conceptual differences (it's more like Repeater than RepeaterMatrix): Every item is a single page in the tree and has a custom template Every repeater item can live anywhere in the pagetree Every item is defined in a single PHP file (using RockMigrations to make it reusable) This makes the setup very flexible on the one hand, makes it reusable across projects (simply copy the file and do a modules::refresh triggering the migrations) and makes it REALLY simple to use for the clients on the other hand: Setting up such a block is quite easy: class Headline extends \RockMatrix\Block { public function info() { return parent::info()->setArray([ 'icon' => 'header', 'title' => 'Überschrift', 'description' => 'Fügt eine Überschrift auf der Seite ein.', ]); } public function init() { $this->addHookAfter("Pages::saveReady", $this, "saveReady"); } // this method makes it easy to customize the item's edit-form // you can change labels, collapsed state, add notes or custom classes etc... public function buildForm($fs) { if($f = $fs->get('title')) { // dont show label for this inputfield $f->skipLabel = Inputfield::skipLabelMarkup; $f->wrapClass('rmx-pd5'); // add class to remove padding } } // the label of the repeater item public function getLabel() { return $this->title ?: $this->info()->title; } // migrations for this item public function migrate() { // the parent migrate creates the necessary template for this block parent::migrate(); // then we set the title field optional for this template $this->rm()->setFieldData("title", [ 'required' => 0, ], $this->getTpl()); } // code to use for rendering on the frontend public function render() { return "<h3 class='tm-font-marker uk-text-primary'>{$this->title}</h3>"; } // optional saveready hook public function saveReady(HookEvent $event) { $page = $event->arguments(0); if($page->template !== $this->getTpl()) return; if(!$page->id) { $page->title = "This is my initial headline"; } } } As you can see in the screenshot, I'm using CKEditor for editing fulltext. That's great, because I can remove all plugins that do usually need more education for clients (like inserting images) and build custom blocks solely for this purpose that every client can grasp a lot quicker and where I have a lot more control and freedom (since the block is a separate template). This means I've always had the freedom of custom image fields even before the image field supported them. Another example: A gallery block (headline + image field): I'm not sure about the scalability of this approach, but having all blocks as custom pages is a huge benefit in many ways. For example I could create a Matrix field having invoice items. Each item would be a page of type "invoiceitem" and then I could query all "invoiceitems" using RockFinder and build an average invoice NET or GROSS value of all invoices of 2020... Access control, page status, etc etc are still challenges though, of course. ####################### I hope that all makes sense and I'm willing to share any of my modules code if that helps. Or give you a demo/walkthrough via screenshare. One last question, as we are talking about the future of PW: One thing is what would happen to the core of PW if anything happend to you @ryan. But we could at least fork the core and do... whatever then would be necessary to keep all our businesses running and all our clients happy. But what about all the Pro modules? We could not get a copy of them and work on ProCache for example on our own (as a community). Did you think about that szenario and have a reassuring anwer for us? ? Of course, I wish you a long life and many happy years of developing PW - it's absolutely impressive what you have built here ?

Exactly what I'm working on, so I'm happy to share my knowledge (code) if there is interest! It seems that interest is there since 2015... https://processwire.com/talk/topic/9494-wire shell-an-extendable-processwire-command-line-interface/ Installation and usage are simple: Installation cd /to/your/project/root/folder # clone rockshell into the "rock" folder git clone git@github.com:baumrock/RockShell.git rock cd rock composer install cd ../ Usage # in your projects root folder # this will list all available commands php rock/shell ---- RockShell will then live in a separate folder "rock" beside "site" and "wire", so everything stays clean. Also it can run without processwire, which is necessary for installation (of course) but might also be helpful in case of anything pw related does not work (500 error due to wrong config or the like). That's why I'd be very interested in using WireFileTools etc. without a running pw instance. I'd be happy to get some hints how that can be done...

You are all right and everyone have good arguments. A page builder should be built IMO. As a recent example, I needed to build a cool invoice, like the one you receive in your inbox sent by big companies names. Their email look so fun/cool/responsive that YOU WANT TO DO THE DAMN CLICK on their call-to-action button. Then I found a cool software called "Nicepage", where you move blocks, edit styles and content, and tada, a cool page done in a minutes, with clean code, really - after a copy-pasta moment, I had my invoice in my template sent by PadLoper. I think it's @Jonathan Lahijani that was saying something in this, users which build marketing pages, landing pages and other things like that, it's just incredibly useful. Another example, I don't build website everyday anymore, but backends (based on ProcessWire) with public/restricted API and desktop/mobile apps connected. I can imagine how easy it could be to extract/manipulate data from an external apps (What's happened with EditorJS). Plus, and even if it's not the primary goal, given the tool we already have in our hand, it will make a bump on new users/devs which will use ProcessWire. The right ones ? not sure, maybe the forum will be spammed by "unexperienced user" which will try to build a website with the builder but doesn't understand in first instance how to apprehend ProcessWire. But it should be developped keeping in mind what all the devs say in their different horizon. I mean, a system of permission should be built-in, every blocks or type of blocks should have a permission, restricting some functionalities that could be used in an editor, or the page builder it-self. Eg. all blocks are available to superuser, but other users will have only access to the defined blocks for their role combined to the restrictions of the page being edited. "I don't want to give so much freedom to my client because he will ruin the front-end" Absolutely, but is your job to lock everything. Building pre-defined blocks (speaking styles, not content (even if you should limit content)). - Give them possibility to write their article, and to add a block with three columns for 3 featured products of their webshop. So cool. - Give them possibility to write their article, and to add a banner/call-to-action newsletter. Here you limit the number of words/paragraph, whatever, then again, So cool. And IMO, it doesn't change anything at this time of writing: with or without a page builder, clients are often asking more and more. Where I see a benefit to give the user the ability to add / remove blocks from a page builder is the ease and feel when editing content - productivity in addition. It depend also on how large is the project, the client's technical background, if there is a team or not, a frontend dev on the team or not. Given this factor, you have to "educate" your client in consequence. This imple to explain to the client, how/why it can and howtonot/whynot it can. To each one his field of work and I think this particular argument should not stop any idea because it is valable for whatever special you make for a client purpose. You will have on the next weeks a preview of EditorJS which maybe will give you more idea/insight on how to work/render/restrict theses data blocks.

Last week I asked you what you'd like to see in ProcessWire in the next year (and years ahead), and we got a lot of feedback. Thank you for all the feedback, we've had a lot of great and productive discussion, and of course feel free to keep suggesting things too. Below is a summary of things based on what I thought was feasible from the feedback so far. I'm not suggesting we'll be able to do all of this in 2021, but do think it makes a good preliminary roadmap of things to look closer at and start working on some very quickly. I'll keep working to narrow this into a real roadmap, but wanted to share where we're at so far (consider it preliminary/unofficial): Flexible content or page building One of the most common themes has been that people want more content building options as an alternative to using a rich text editor at one end, and page builder at another. This is a direction that some other CMSs have been going in (like WordPress), and one that many would like to see ProcessWire provide an option for as well. But the needs seem to come from two different angles, and it points to us pursuing 2 directions simultaneously: First would be a flexible content block style editor in the core as an alternative to rich text editor that supports pluggable block types while maintaining best content management practices. If possible, we'd use an existing tool/library like editor.js or another as a base to build from, or potentially build a new one if necessary. To be clear, it would not be a replacement for CKEditor but an alternative approach supported by the core. Second would involve improvements to Repeater/RepeaterMatrix that enhance its abilities in supporting those using it for building more complex content page builders. Since many are already using it for this purpose, the goal would be primarily to better and further support this use case, rather than make Repeater/RepeaterMatrix a dedicated builder. Jonathan Lahijani and others have pointed out some specific things that would help achieve this and I plan to implement them. Admin theme improvements We would like to add additional flexibility to the AdminThemeUikit theme so that people can further customize it how they would like it. What directions this will take aren't nailed down quite yet, other than to say that it's going to be getting some focus (and this has already started). At the very least, we know people want more sidebar options and the ability to tweak specific CSS, perhaps in a preset fashion. Improvements to existing Fieldtypes and Inputfields Things like support for a decimal column type, more date searching options and additional input level settings on other types. Though these are specific feature requests and our focus is more broad, so we'll be going through many of the core modules and adding improvements like these and more, where it makes sense. Pull requests and feature requests People would like to see us expand our code contributor base by merging more pull requests in cases where we safely do it. We will also be narrowing in on the specific feature requests repo to see which would be possible to implement this year. External API There are requests for an external/front-end API that would also be accessible from JS. I support the idea, but have security concerns so am not yet sure if or in what direction we might take here, other than that I would like us to continue looking at it and talking about it. File/media manager and more file sharing options There is interest in an option for a central media/file manager so that assets can be shared from a central manager rather than just shared page to page. There is also interest in the ability for file/image fields to reference files on other file/image fields. External file storage Some would like to be able to have PW store its /site/assets/ and/or /site/assets/files/ on alternate file systems like S3. That's something we'd like to use for this site too. To an extent, work already started on this last year with some updates that were made, but there's still a long way to go. But it will be great for sure. Live preview and auto-save There are requests for live preview and auto-save features to be in the core. Currently they are just in ProDrafts, but there are now more options and libraries that would facilitate their implementation in the core, so I'd like to see what we can do with this. More multi-site features There is interest in ProcessWire natively supporting more multi-site features, potentially with the option of working with our multi-language support.

@ryan is it possible that the community funds the development of the content builder? Can you think of a number we can set and try to collect? We can at least try this model)

elseif ($today >= $start AND $today <= $end) echo " <span class='editor-label' style='margin: -7px 0 0 -7px;background-color:#db152e;'><span style='font-size: 10px;'>" . html_entity_decode(__('UNTIL')) . $end . "</span></span> "; You've got PHP shorttags inside an echo which is breaking things.

@Sascha Nos You can output third level by declaring it in your module config https://github.com/ryancramerdesign/ProcessHello/blob/master/ProcessHello.info.php#L42 https://github.com/ryancramerdesign/ProcessHello/blob/master/ProcessHello.info.php#L50 And if I not mistaken if you want to output some dynamic items you can implement executeNavJSON method like https://github.com/processwire/processwire/blob/d8945198f4a6a60dab23bd0462e8a6285369dcb9/wire/modules/Process/ProcessTemplate/ProcessTemplate.module#L143

Part of the process that happens when you set a Files or Images field value is the copying of the file to the page's folder in /site/assets/files/. The solution is not to set the Pageimage to the field. Just use some variable name like... $header_image = getHeaderImage($page); ...or if you want it stored on the Page object then invent some property name that isn't a field name, e.g. $page->the_header_image = getHeaderImage($page);

Yes, this is also what I was liking about it. I think the only thing that gave me pause is the development side of it. The plugins don't look as simple to develop as I thought they would be. At least, the learning curve there looks a bit high, and the amount of code to develop something simple seems more than I would have expected. But the same is true of developing CKEditor plugins, and none of those are deal breakers. This seems to be the nature of JS based plugin systems. I do feel like I need to find all the editor.js type options, as I'm guessing there are similar projects we should explore before picking one to build from; even if editor.js seems the most likely at the moment. Sounds awesome. I'd encourage you to release it as a module if you can. The reason I'm looking at two strategies is because I agree that the editor.js approach is great, and probably a good fit for many (or most). But there's also users like Jonathan Lahijani, where the editor.js/bard approach is not nearly powerful enough. The repeater approach does have the power, even if it's not as immediately intuitive. That's why my plan is to further develop RepeaterMatrix to better support those that want to use it as a builder, while also pursing a simpler strategy along the lines of editor.js. Does this mean that either approach is going to answer every need and interest for everybody? That's unlikely, but hopefully it'll be a good start and get the momentum going. If we were to use editor.js, then I wouldn't expect one's template code to consume JSON. We'd map the JSON to an object (or array) so that it could be used just as easily as page fields. Right, same kind in terms of what it stores. In terms of implementation, I think we are talking about 1 core direction, but 2 different directions overall. Neither direction at the expense of the other. A reasonable one that the core provides (editor.js approach or similar). And then upgrades to RepeaterMatrix for those that want to use it as a more powerful builder. So the 2nd option would simply be ProFields RepeaterMatrix, and it wouldn't even be a builder per se, but it would be ready to be used as a builder a lot more than it is now. Not flaws per se, but features that would make it better support use as a builder. That's what I'm looking to add. For a repeater matrix based builder, this would be at the discretion of the developer as to how and what they wanted to store. So in your case you might want to store something more abstract, whereas someone else might want something directly tied to their output framework. For the simpler/editor.js type builder, I don't think it would get into this type of layout thing at all. This is all true, I don't think you would be able to on the editor.js side. The elements are defined by editor.js plugins, static code. Just like CKEditor plugins. Though we'd probably bundle a lot of plugins and build some of our own. Ultimately the editor.js route will never be as powerful as the repeater route in this regard. But it will be very easy to setup and very accessible. This is something Jonathan and I discussed on our call last week. The storage behind Repeater/Matrix is overkill for the needs of a builder, so what would be ideal is if repeaters had an option to merge some of the storage needs. It's something I'm going to be looking into, though I'm not yet sure what's possible. This is basically what the new Combo field does. Though they are connected to the database, but a repeatable Combo field wouldn't require pages for storage the way Repeaters do. Nevertheless, for a builder, it seems that the underlying pages do bring a lot of benefits, even if they are overkill for the need. This is already true. But I still think the two-tier route offers the most benefits. On one side something simple like editor.js, and on the other side, something ready for more complex needs based off an existing Fieldtype like RepeaterMatrix. Also, Bernhard's solution in the other thread looked pretty great too; he said it was similar to repeaters in some fashion, also using pages from what I understand. Will do. That's true. Use ProcessWire (or any other tool) for what it has right now. You are right there are no guarantees about which features or ideas will be implemented, even for me. There have been cases where someone needed something and decided to sponsor it for the community, by hiring me or someone else in the community to build it. Outside of that, I have to find a crossover between feature requests and the needs of the projects that I work on with my clients, or with Pro modules. I can't afford to build features just for the sake of building them; I still have to find a way to fund them and then support them afterwards. The way I do that is by developing stuff that finds a balance between client needs and project needs. That way I don't have to bear all the development costs myself. The Pro modules also help to fund the core, though they also are significant projects in their own right, so I try to put much of Pro module budgets back into Pro modules themselves too. Though I put the question out there because I thought this year I could get into a couple of things that go beyond the usual development path. I'm admittedly cautious about what gets pulled in, and there's no guarantee that a PR submitted without prior discussion will ever be added. I'm also serious about supporting this project for 10, 20 years or more, so anything that gets pulled in also becomes responsibility to support it for life. The person that submits the PR does not have that responsibility. I need to make sure I fully understand and can support anything that gets pulled in. I also have to make sure it's worthwhile for the majority of users. So my preference is for PRs to be preceded by a discussion before someone creates it, so that we can evaluate needs and timing, etc. Sometimes something can be added very easily and without a lot of investment to review and understand it all, and I try to cover those once a year, or more if possible. The guidelines are here (https://github.com/processwire/processwire/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) and while they do touch on this, they could go further. I will work on that. Thanks.

@flydev ??, Spot on, everything you've said! I've been thinking along similar lines! I wish I could give you more likes! ?. I agree and I don't think it should be limited to this group. Lowering the entry barrier to any software, especially in the modern age is incredibly useful. Look at all the rage about coding for kids, etc. Python is great in this regard. So are tools like Flutter. For a while I was of the notion that things like page builders are somehow anti-pattern with respect to ProcessWire. Lately, I have had to discard that opinion. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the core should provide this capability. No, such things can be built by the community. For me, when we say that ProcessWire is simple, powerful, enjoyable, scalable, familiar, friendly, etc...., that encapsulates the absolute freedom the tool provides me. I can do almost anything with it. It doesn't take away from the tool. It is a testament to how versatile the tool is. Behind the scenes, it is still ProcessWire. The output, what I can do with it, well, that is the magic that is ProcessWire. And for this, I have to give Ryan credit. I doubt there are many CMSs out there that will allow you to extend it as much as ProcessWire does, yet remain stable and secure. I don't see this as a problem at all, but rather an opportunity. I am not talking about the more the merrier. Rather, making a powerful, enjoyable tool accessible to people with different skill sets and different approaches to building things. That is a good thing, maybe even a great thing. In the end, we all want the same thing. To build secure, reliable, fast, stable websites/portals for our clients. If you can achieve that via pure coding, more power to you. On the other hand if you can achieve that (at least partly) via drag and drop, nice one mate! More power to you too. In addition, a builder doesn't mean the builder will just output code arbitrarily. On the contrary, the dev still has full control over the output, access controls, etc. This is crucial! In the same manner we lock 'fields' , 'templates', 'modules', etc., we can and should lock the builder down, both at the visual and processing data level. Exactly! That's how I've designed the builder I worked on this weekend ?. Looking forward to this! Hopefully, in the next few days you will also have a preview of the page and content builder I developed over my weekend hackathon ?.

? ? ? ???? ?? ????????? ?‍♂️?‍♂️??‍♂️?‍♂️?‍♂️?‍♂️

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. We've got templates which define a Page's type in terms of fields, behavior and access. Then we've got custom Page classes which define a Page's type in terms of its API, which can also extend other Page classes. Then we've got Page tree/hierarchy/parents, which define their type in terms of location. I'm not sure what's left. ? Is there some other kind of page type you are talking about? I will update the AdminThemeUikit repo. Unfortunately I've run into some npm error where it wants to do some kind of updates before it will update the UIkit version, but updates it wants to do in npm fail. This seems to happen every time I want to update something that uses npm, but I always eventually find a way around it. This last one has had me stuck for awhile though. I'll revisit it here soon. I've never liked these command line package installers/managers because they always seem to have some problem without a clear answer. I guess it's the nature of the beast. In this case, you've modified the core _masthead.php. Don't do that. ? The intention is that an admin theme would provide its own _masthead.php file (or whatever you decide to name it). Actually I was thinking admin themes would replace all of the markup files. That's in part why they are all split out on their own. The updates added to AdminThemeUikit last week make it so that you no longer have to provide your own markup files if you don't want to, but for your case where you are changing method calls and include statements in those markup files, you'll no doubt want to have your own markup files. This gets into more overhead than I'd want to be involved for rendering the admin theme... at least for the core default one (AdminThemeUikit). I've even tried to actively avoid the traditional type of hooks here, so that the admin theme itself doesn't add its own overhead to the request. There's nothing faster than include() of a php file to render something, so that's the strategy AdminThemeUikit takes. Admin themes use a different kind of hooks for adding markup in parts of an admin theme, and they actually aren't really hooks at all, even though I still think of them as being a type of hook. You can call $adminTheme->addExtraMarkup($name, $value); to add extra markup to various parts of the admin theme. Any module or admin template code can do this any time during the request, up until the admin theme gets rendered (at the end of the request). The $value is the markup you want to add, and the $name is a region name where any one of the following are currently recognized: "head" - adds markup before </head> "masthead" - adds markup in the div#pw-mastheads "notices" - adds markup after the notices/notifications "content" - adds markup in div#pw-content-body "sidebar" - adds markup in #pw-sidebar, only if theme uses a sidebar "body" - adds markup before </body> "footer" - adds markup in footer#pw-footer This is the strategy that the admin themes use to support other modules in adding markup where necessary to the admin theme output. This is faster and simpler than using a traditional hook. More region names can be added easily if/when we need more. If developing your own admin theme, then you don't need hooks or the addExtraMarkup() function because you can already override anything in the AdminTheme you are extending, you can provide your markup files as needed, and add your own methods as needed. Admin themes should still support markup added with addExtraMarkup() though, but it's easy, just $adminTheme->renderExtraMarkup($name); at the appropriate spots in your admin theme template files. If there's anything I can add to make it easier for people to have a dashboard page, I'm happy to. But I don't currently think it should be built into the core. The core doesn't have anything worthwhile to communicate to admin users in a dashboard, so it would just be extraneous fluff (i.e. "numbers", "more numbers", and "numbers again"), like it seems to be in most systems. The kind of stuff that makes a simple system look complicated. Others may have something specific they want to communicate to their logged in users, and that's where I think it becomes worthwhile. If there's demand for it, I'd be more interested in hearing not about a dashboard, but about what one is wanting to communicate with it. Thank you for continuing to develop this. I agree there are benefits. This may be something we should keep talking about for the longer term. With the exception of WireMail, all the classes you mentioned are intended to be available for standalone use. Though it's been a long time since I've used any of PW's classes in that way. This I think is likely an easily attainable thing to support though. Most of the mentioned classes just extend the Wire class, making it the only dependency (and Wire doesn't require a DB connection). A DB connection would be needed for WireMail because it is a module type. Installed modules are known from the database modules table. A WireMail module also maintains its settings in the database. Now is is true that the base WireMail class can operate without a database, but WireMail is only useful because it is a module type. Take out the module aspect and WireMail is just an interface to PHP's mail(). The core datetime field is meant to store a single date/time, but that's it. I agree that sometimes a need arises for more than a single date/time. ProcessWire core is meant to focus on the basics, while supporting modules to accommodate a broader set of needs when they occur. I think this is a good example of a need that is nicely accommodated by a module that you've developed. Thanks for sharing the strategy you are using here. It's great to see the different solutions people are working with these last couple of weeks. From the screenshots I really like the approach you are using here. It looks powerful while easy to understand and client friendly. Yet also looks very PW familiar as well. Visually it might be the clearest I've seen, even relative to something like The Bard. The means of definition does also look simple, though I think for something that other developers would use, they might prefer that the front-end rendering be isolated from the back-end component. Something that makes it easier for you to provide pre-written components, while they provide the front-end markup. For instance, maybe the render() method delegates to a front-end template file somewhere in a subdirectory off /site/templates/fields/? And if there is not file, then maybe it provides a default output. The reason repeaters store their pages off in the admin structure is to solve these things. But it does come with its own challenges as well. Most likely I wouldn't be able to make any more commits to the core if I got run over by a train. I've always thought this was one of the reasons to use open source, ensuring that when someone smacks the tracks, the code doesn't. But it's not just about being open source, the code also has to be clean and well documented so that others can easily take it on board. That's one reason why I put so much effort into code quality and code documentation. My intention is that the code is always ready for others to understand and work with. As for commercial services/modules, it's the same risk inherent with any product or service you pay for. While not open source, the Pro modules do have the same code quality and documentation as the core, and are not obfuscated or encrypted. If it sets your mind at ease, I'm 46 years old (not 76), and am very healthy. I run and lift every day, eat lots of salads, don't eat red meat, and don't participate in any dangerous activities. Most likely I'll be here for at least another 46 years. But if I'm ever derailed then I know the project would still be in good hands. Seems like it might be simple to do. Can you expand on this? When/where would you use it?

+1 for a solid database migration mechanism. Deploying field/template updates to production involves a lot of manual copy/pasting. Having a built-in way of describing changes in database structure would make automated deployments and rollbacks possible.

The other great thing about it is that it's a very realistic thing we can do. Though Jonathan's video pointed out a lot of drawbacks. Maybe we can solve some of them with upgrades to RepeaterMatrix like Jonathan proposed, and maybe others are acceptable drawbacks given our context is very different from tools like WordPress. Plus, it seems like Jonathan is already using this approach successfully with clients. I took a closer look at https://editorjs.io/ and I like it for a lot of the same reasons I liked what The Bard example was showing. The plugin-based approach for blocks it uses looks great and this seems like something we could probably integrate pretty easily/quickly since it's based off an existing tool that handles the difficult-to-code parts. Being able to solve this need with an existing tool like this is the ideal route IMO. While cool no doubt, this is where I get into more of a grey area as to whether ProcessWire should be involved in this sort of thing at all. It just seems it steps maybe too much outside the scope of content management. Yes, this makes sense. This is what I liked about that editor.js option, as it seems like (combined with its plugins) it's already a clean system for doing this. Interested to hear of others think this approach would be a good path to take. I'm already a fan of Unpoly after spending a lot of time looking at it, particularly with how lightweight it is relative to what it does. There isn't anything hard coded in it. The top area is a CKE and images field, and images use tags to place in groups. The next part is list of features/highlights, each with headline, icon, description, and link; these are a FieldtypeTable field. Another FieldtypeTable field manages quotes (quote, cite, source, active), which are pulled randomly in different parts of the page, as well as on other pages in the site (which pull from the same field). Everything else on the page is pulled in dynamically from other parts of the site. For instance, the blog part always shows the newest blog posts, the showcase part always shows the newest site additions, the Pro modules part pulls from the /store/, etc. So there isn't really much code on the actual homepage template, since it's actually the other parts of the site rendering each of those. I agree, I will add this. Yes, that has been my experience as well and so this was one of the things ProcessWire has always tried to solve from the beginning. Keep the client focused on semantic content and not on style, layout or presentation. It's also why I've never been a fan of front-end editing. As soon as the person editing content takes their focus off of meaning and shifts to presentation, that's where things go south and content is no longer portable. I see a fundamental job of a CMS being to manage portable content. With all that said, it does seem like there is an exception to the above (per what Jonathan mentioned earlier). That is, the perhaps temporary 1-page marketing things, where questions of portability don't really matter and the short term marketing needs do. This is already built into FieldtypeFloat, so another good reason for it to add DECIMAL column support. Well in this case, we would add the support to the core, so one wouldn't need to use Combo for that purpose. A number spinner is built into the HTML5 number type, which is already an option for the float field. What's lacking is the ability to modify the step value from the default. I can add that, no problem. @Robin S I've been experimenting with your Uikit admin CSS additions and a few of them (some of the "fix" ones) seem like they should be added to the core. Some of the other more subjective ones, you've got me thinking we should have a "customization presets" dropdown in the Uikit admin that lets you select predefined customization sets like yours. I think having separate configuration settings for all the different things you've changed is probably too much configuration, but presets seems like a good way to answer common preferences people might have?

See here. If there's something to add, feel free: https://github.com/processwire/processwire-issues/issues/1304

great ? Also reasonable and clever ? I'm sure the interface can be improved a lot more. Just did not have the time for that and had to get things done and work with what I have... Yeah, that's true. With one difference that I can define WHERE the created pages live. Usually they live under the page /rockmatrixblocks, but that can be totally up to the user. Not sure if I'm using that "feature" anywhere or really need that. But thought this might be good to have one day... For example one could create a site of team members of a football club using RockMatrix and all the players would still be a regular PW page that can be visited on the frontend, but can be sorted and quickly edited via RockMatrix GUI. One can think of it as an extended page reference field (like ASMSelect). Regarding the overhead: I have thought of that, and I don't know how my setup would perform on large scale. But my feeling was that PW is built for handling millions of pages, so why should it not also be capable of handling millions of matrix blocks?

I don't have any strong opinions here, just a few observations. I like the editor.js strategy, but I also like Bernhard's strategy. For example, I like the "something new and interesting" aspect of editor.js, and I like the "something clear and familiar" aspect of Bernhard's. His screenshot is immediately clear how it all works. I don't speak the language of the headers, content and buttons, but it's all still obvious how it works and what it does. That says a lot. To my eye it's more clear than editor.js at first glance, though I've used a lot of ProcessWire and very little editor.js, so I would trust others' judgement more. One major difference is clearly that Bernhard's approach uses pages in the same way that RepeaterMatrix does (I think?) whereas editor.js uses a block of JSON. There are benefits and drawbacks to each approach in terms of storage and overhead, but from a familiar API side, the pages approach is a good and known factor, even if it is likely a bit overkill for this type of storage (as it can be with many repeater cases). This already appears to be built in ProcessWire and already in use (?), that's quite a head start too.

This module works wonderfully and it really helped me a lot, so I just want to say thank you

Wow - totally missed the discussion here!!! That's why the page-builder-part in my post in the newer news-thread was somewhat offtopic... I'll reference it here and throw it into the discussion ? Let me comment wildly on some statements first - I'll try to summarize that in the end... Yes, this makes sense. This is what I liked about that editor.js option, as it seems like (combined with its plugins) it's already a clean system for doing this. Interested to hear of others think this approach would be a good path to take. Please. No! I've done some research before starting with RockMatrix and editorjs was an option that I looked at. I decided against that approach. I can't really explain, but I had the feeling that this is some 3rd party concept and not the way ProcessWire would do content management. I had the feeling, that if we used something like editorjs we'd need to develop a totally new concept for all the content blocks. But WHY should we do that? WHY would that be better then using existing ProcessWire concepts? We have everything we need (speaking about Fieldtypes and Inputfields) and throwing that away would not be clever imho! Take a look at my matrix setup: First block is a headline - a regular PW "title" (text) field. I'm just removing the inputfield's header (we can already do such things easily via hooks!) Second block is a ckeditor field - similar, we remove the header and allow just a subset of usual ckeditor buttons. For example the image button is removed, because images are inserted via their own custom blocktype (gallery). That approach has several huge benefits that by far outweigh the drawbacks: Blocks are PW pages, this means you can do all kinds of PW magic with them. Think of hooks, think of custom page classes, think of doing listings using RockFinder (for example I'm using RockMatrix to hold invoice items having a description, an amount and a price and I can simply query all those items with a simple find call like "template=invoiceitem, year=2020") etc.; What about Multi-Language?! How would one build an editorjs field that properly reflects the internal PW multilang system?? What about file uploads? We know that files need pages and corresponding folders... We use existing, proven tools (fieldtypes/inputfields) Exactly. That's what I've built my matrix field for and that's what I need in every project. @Autofahrn has also put a lot of work into that topic! That sounds great. My matrix field does not allow nesting and showing items side-by-side or dragging dem from one block to another. But so far this has not been a problem at all! Quite the contrary. My clients love the ease of use. Even Non-Tec people can build great looking sites within no time. See these examples: https://www.kaumberg.gv.at/naturparadies-kaumberg/wanderwege/bergsiedlungsrunde/ https://www.kaumberg.gv.at/gemeindeamt-buergerservice/aerzte-therapeuten/gemeindeaerztin-dr-alexandra-hutsteiner/ https://www.kaumberg.gv.at/gemeindeamt-buergerservice/gemeinde-mitarbeiterinnen/ And using the same content blocks for a totally different topic: https://www.kaumberg.gv.at/gastlichkeit-tourismus-betriebe/betriebe-in-kaumberg/ This is SO flexible. If they needed any new content type (eg Youtube Video) I'd just add another matrix block and they could add videos everywhere on their website. I'm avoiding the PW admin more and more. I'm doing most of my work in RockMigrations nowadays, because it turns out that this often is quicker and less tedious than clicking around through the admin, replicating the changes on dev/live, rolling back changes manually etc etc.; Using migration scripts on the other hand I have my code in GIT, can just copy over parts as needed (git pull/git push), or simply use MultiCursor in my IDE to change the "columnWidth" setting of multiple fields at once (does anybody want to count the clicks necessary for changing 3 fields' columnWidth setting in the PW backend? ? ). I don't want to say that the PW backend is bad. Not at all. I've even wondered what @LostKobrakai is talking all the time when he showcased his migrations module back then, but I want to say that the PW backend might be really nice to have for simple use cases and beginners, but it is definitely a burden when dealing with advanced setups (think of automation, CI/CD, maybe multiple people working on one project at the same time, etc, etc). But I'm not voting for editorjs route here either! When I looked at editorjs and how plugins are built, that was a whole new world. I don't know much about all those modern javascript related dev tools and I don't really want to learn them, to be honest. Maybe that's the problem and I'm not being fair. But creating a new matrix block in my case is simply creating one single PHP file that extends \RockMatrix\Block, that's it... And I'd love to see such a setup in the core or a professionally supported one as pro module ? Sounds great ? This gets totally easy when using RockMigrations!! That's another reason why a solid migration system should definitely be part of the core! Everything would benefit a lot from such a core feature - module development, devs developing sites and reusing parts, etc... That would be a dream. Though I say again that I much more prefer defining things in code. Building user interfaces can be soo hard, while adding a hook can be so simple, efficient and clear. For example defining allowed blocks in RockMatrix is done like that: $wire->addHookAfter('RockMatrix::getAllowedBlocks', function($event) { $field = $event->arguments(0); $page = $event->arguments(1); if($field->name !== 'rmtest') return; $event->return->add([ '\RMDemo\Headline', '\RMDemo\Markup', ]); }); Imagine you had to build this as GUI... Sounds not too complicated, because you could use an ASMSelect field that lists all blocks and makes them selectable and sortable. But what if you'd want to show some blocks only to some special user role and hide them for others?! A simple if-statement in the hook. Nearly impossible to build as GUI... *emotional* Please, don't ? I've created a video that hopefully helps you all to get an impression: I think it would be helpful to clarify WHERE this discussion should happen upfront. In the forum? Via e-mail? Opening an issue (I think that's not the right place)...? But yeah... thinking about it I can imagine that monitoring all those channels is not easy and must take a lot of time...

Will try to remember this one, thank you very much I'ts working great now ? R

That's simply bootstrapping PW in a command, then loading rockmigrations and doing $rm->createField(...);

@Ivan Gretsky Thanks for the suggestion, I actually don't have any idea about what it takes just yet. I was thinking we'd see what we can do without a budget and if demand is there for something more (but it's not possible without funding), then we'd cross that bridge when we come to it. Whether community funded or Pro module route or another, we can talk more when/if it seems needed. Part of our plan involves more support in RepeaterMatrix for this sort of thing, so that at least is already community funded. But for the core side of things where we are looking at an editor.js type strategy, I don't know how much resources it'll take to build, but I'm hoping it'll be manageable without needing to seek funding, since we're looking to integrate with an existing tool. @AndZyk Thanks, I know your intention wasn't set the standard from that. My reply was just something I meant to mention earlier to everyone, so this seemed like a good place to do so. But of course I think it's a good idea to look at everything out there, both free and commercial, this can only help. I'm going to explore what Kirby is doing in more detail too. But I also have to be realistic that our resources are limited relative to commercial projects, or commercial backed projects like WordPress. So we won't be able to build a direct Gutenberg competitor (not that I think anyone wants us to), but I do think we'll be able to build something great.

Sorry, if I wasn't clear enough in my suggestion: I was just referring to the new Blocks and especially the Layout feature in Kirby 3.5 (linked in my previous post), which looks awesome, although I haven't tried it yet. But I could imagine something similar in ProcessWire and think that should be possible. If the Layout feature would be a pro module, I would be glad to pay for it. It was only my intention to give a pointer what a similar product is offering. ?

Most likely I wouldn't be able to make any more commits to the core if I got run over by a train. I've always thought this was one of the reasons to use open source, ensuring that when someone smacks the tracks, the code doesn't. But it's not just about being open source, the code also has to be clean and well documented so that others can easily take it on board. That's one reason why I put so much effort into code quality and code documentation. My intention is that the code is always ready for others to understand and work with. As for commercial services/modules, it's the same risk inherent with any product or service you pay for. While not open source, the Pro modules do have the same code quality and documentation as the core, and are not obfuscated or encrypted. If it sets your mind at ease, I'm 46 years old (not 76), and am very healthy. I run and lift every day, eat lots of salads, don't eat red meat, and don't participate in any dangerous activities. Most likely I'll be here for at least another 46 years. But if I'm ever derailed then I know the project would still be in good hands. Never say never. When I was 25, I was fit an healthy, and then got meningitis which nearly killed me. When I was 42, I was also apparently fit and healthy, and then ended up with a twisted bowel which also nearly killed me. I've recently been asked a similar question by some of my clients, "What happens if something happens to you?" I think perhaps a peace of mind option with the pro modules might be to include some sort of clause that allows rights to modify them to provide bug fixes etc, and also explicitly have some sort of clause around what happens if the developer (you) ceases to support them. I've often thought about software licensing and what should happen if the original author is no longer able to support their code, but there's still a need to use it. I know that people need to earn a living, and relying on donations usually won't be sufficient, so licensing software is a fair way to get paid, however it would be useful to have some sort of commercial license that both respects a copyright holders right to earn an income, but also provides peace of mind to licensees in the event of the software being abandoned by the original creator. I understand in normal circumstances, copyright extends past an author's death, but I know that my wife or daughter would not be able to support any code I might write, although they might need revenues generated by it if it's still useful without modification, so the licensing thing is complex.

In the meantime I have manually fixed all the compromised records using the admin and I cannot test it, but thank you very much Robin for taking time to provide this solution. Really helpful for any additional repeater problem ? Have a nice day.

This might work: foreach($users as $u) { $u->of(false); $u->save('user_payment'); }

I must admit that this is something I had not envisaged.. my mind was focus on people existing contents ?

PW does not process any real existing folder. You don't have to do anything for making it ignore them. That's the default behavior.

Hey, I found two vinyl albums of the group Tuxedomoon from the early eighties. If someone knows them and like to get them, please drop me a note. (for the shipping cost) 1) TUXEDOMOON - "Half Mute / Scream With a View", (1980) 2) TUXEDOMOON - "A thousand lives by pictures", (1983) 25 years back, I moved from Vinyls to CDs. Over the years I gave away all vinyls, only kept a number of around 50 pieces that I initially wanted to digitize. But I do not hear this music any more and never missed it. Also there were some more or less rare vinyls I really digitized, maybe 10 albums, but for all others it definetly is to much work. ?

What is about starting at early state without that feature? Just with the possibility or limitation to use it for new (empty) projects? Who has said this: "Release early and often"? Don't remember. And yes, I know, there are not only pros with this strategy. ?

The Page Lister (a centerpiece of PW) is also in need of major improvement IMHO. The icons are not always in the same place due to page titles of different lengths, which is very annoying and distracts a good workflow. A tabular representation or other optimized view, would be better suited here. Here, again, everyone may have a different preference, so an option of which display type to use would be a good idea. This has been mentioned here before. I would be willing to work on a proposal for an optimized layout. Moving entries in the page lister, doesn't work very well and it's cumbersome. I found a great Tree JavaScript a while ago that implements drag and drop much better http://www.treejs.cn/v3/demo.php#_307 and was actually going to work on integrating it to PW, but unfortunately didn't have enough time. The looks of that script can be completely customized. Then I didn't know if it was worth it, since I know that many PR's just never get integrated and I also lacked the time. I had made first attempts, but noticed that the PageLister is very extensive and nested.

One of the things that bothers me about ProcessWire is the integration of the community into the development process. It is not clear which features or ideas will be implemented and if and how you can influence this decision at all. For example, it would be conceivable that within a period (for example a quarter) you look at which Github issues have the most thumbsup and then fix or implement them. If there are too many features, or they have the same number of thumbsups, you could also make a poll in the forum, what the community would like to have implemented faster. The pull requests sometimes are not integrated for years. Even if a control or a rewrite would be necessary for this, it would be good to have a feedback if the PR is "under consideration" or "won't merge" or "working on it" or a comment. Because the way it is now, it seems like the PRs are just decaying unseen and there is no point in working on this open source project. Ryan wrote: My preference is always that we talk about the PR before someone takes the time to code and submit one, so that we are on the same page about the goals and timeline for it, and getting all the details right. PR's that come in unsolicited are fine too, but they do take me a lot longer to get through. It would be nice if this was also listed in the Contribution Guidelines https://github.com/processwire/processwire-issues/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md These guidelines are also the place to say how new ideas or fixes are handled and under what conditions they are integrated. If Ryan discloses his criteria that he has as a requirement for features, enough developers might follow those guidelines when creating a PR. After all, it would be great if there were a few selected contributors and they could then merge PRs, or at least do a pre-review, so that Ryan has an easier time integrating them later.

I agree. The way I see it, if there's a low level SQL type that supports given functionality, there should be a fieldtype that corresponds to it, however the ProcessWire specific fieldtypes are there for when additional functionality is required that can't be supported directly through SQL. Speaking of that, it may be a bit of a limited use case, but I've wondered a few times about adding geometry fieldtypes and adding geometry selectors. There's already the FieldtypeMapMarker, but this is using just standard float fields in mySQL, while mySQL and MariaDB have support for geometry datatypes and spacial indexes, and there are times it would be nice to be able to do a query and return all the places within a given distance. I already hacked the FieldtypeMapMarker a bit to allow adding KML overlays exported from Google Earth, or mobile tracker apps, but there's certainly a lot more that could be done to give geospatial data first class treatment if enough people use it.

Not sure where I want to take this... At least it will be a successor of https://processwire.com/talk/topic/18166-processwire-kickstart/; Maybe more... Anybody here still using wire shell and wants to share experiences/learnings? How were you using it? What was missing? What did you like most? etc

Just in case we really go that route with dynamic admin pages there is a way NOT to use a reactive JS still achieving similar results, staying in the realm of a server-generated html and avoiding complex build workflows. There is a mature Unpoly library and a new Hotwire stuff from Basecamp themselves. Using those might be an alternative, which would not require such massive changes, as switching to Vue or React (do not think Alpine is enough here)) Hotwire would be a great couple to ProcessWire due to it's name only))

Thanks for the very insightful video @Jonathan Lahijani Flexible Content / Page Builders When it comes to this, if you look at what's out there, in many cases, you'll invariably end up in either of two places with respect to the technology behind the builders; Vue JS or React. A few examples: Statamic - Vue JS Gutenburg - React YOOtheme Pro's Builder - Vue JS Storyblok - Vue JS There is ?. It is called Vue JS (I prefer it over React). OK, there is no ready made tool solution but from my experience developing Padloper 2, I can say it is quite doable. If we are to build any sort of page/site builder, I'd highly suggest to look at either Vue or React - especially Vue. It will save you a lot of hassle. The biggest challenge I found with these frameworks if using the CLI versions (recommended) is that the 'app' has to be developed outside ProcessWire as they run on different ports. This means the app has to be 'built' in order to test it inside ProcessWire. This is a tedious process. I have never been able to develop a Vue app inside ProcessWire and still get the benefit of Hot Reloading. If we end up using Vue JS (or even React), then perhaps we need to pay a visit to our old friend jQuery (and its siblings - UI) to plan for their retirement? ?. It wouldn't make sense to have both. Even if we didn't end up with Vue, modern JavaScript has some great APIs that can replace the dependency on jQuery. I know this is a huge undertaking. I know both the modern and the old have their pros and cons. I also know that jQuery is not evil. I know the decision to use it or not can be subjective. I just prefer working with reactive frameworks (and vanilla JS). What do you guys think? @ryan, would modern JavaScript tools fit into this vision?

In this video, I demonstrate YOOtheme Pro's Builder (WordPress) and talk about its approach and benefits. I then demonstrate 3 different builder concepts in ProcessWire using Repeater/RepeaterMatrix, two of which are modeled after YOOtheme Pro's builder and their limitations along with some suggestions. ( @ryan ) (note: there are many more considerations when it comes to a page builder, but if there were some sort of css-framework agnostic layout tool, that would solve the biggest page builder problem) Please share your thoughts.

Thanks Ryan - this sounds like exactly what we need - it would be great if authors of all alternate theme modules could update to use this approach - currently they are all subject to getting behind the core themes in terms of functionality. I wonder though if perhaps it's time to set up a "base" theme that handles all the basic functionality / layout of the admin and have Uikit extend that. Of course the default theme and Reno could also be modified to extend it, although I expect doing that would be a waste of effort as I think most people are using the Uikit theme. Regardless, I do think it's time it became the default theme way one or another.

The decimal fieldtype is available and works well (I use it for an ecommerce site with large numbers, no problems): However it would be nice if this was in the core: https://github.com/processwire/processwire-requests/issues/126 FieldTypeTable supports decimals by the way.

@Robin S I've pushed an update to the dev branch that makes it simpler to extend AdminThemeUikit. As far as I can tell, the reason you got the result you got before is because your admin theme was likely missing all of the other files that go along with an admin theme (?). So the reason you can't just extend AdminThemeUikit and be done with it, is because the module file is only one part of the admin theme. I've updated it so that AdminThemeUikit is now built expending that you might extend the class, without all the other files. So now you can create an AdminThemeUikit derived module like this: File: /site/modules/AdminThemeTest/AdminThemeTest.module <?php namespace ProcessWire; class AdminThemeTest extends AdminThemeUikit { public static function getModuleInfo() { return array( 'title' => 'Test Admin', 'version' => 1, 'summary' => 'Test extending Uikit admin theme', 'autoload' => 'template=admin', 'requires' => 'AdminThemeUikit', ); } } You'll also need this file in the same directory: File: /site/modules/AdminThemeTest/controller.php <?php namespace ProcessWire; if(!defined("PROCESSWIRE")) die(); require($config->paths->core . "admin.php"); The above would just be the same thing as AdminThemeUikit. But at that point, you can easily override and extend anything from the AdminTheme, AdminThemeFramework or AdminThemeUikit class. For instance, here the same module as above, but I'm extending the renderExtraMarkup() method to add some more markup to <head> to make the primary headline <h1> smaller (not suggesting this would be the right way to apply CSS though): <?php namespace ProcessWire; class AdminThemeTest extends AdminThemeUikit { public static function getModuleInfo() { return array( 'title' => 'Test Admin', 'version' => 1, 'summary' => 'Test extending Uikit admin theme', 'autoload' => 'template=admin', 'requires' => 'AdminThemeUikit', ); } public function renderExtraMarkup($for) { $out = parent::renderExtraMarkup($for); if($for === 'head') { $out .= "<style type='text/css'>" . "#pw-content-head h1 { font-size: 24px }" . "</style>"; } return $out; } }

Merry Christmas everyone! I hope you have some peaceful and calm days! ? If you've been keeping an eye on the commits in the meantime, you'll have seen some progress for the upcoming version 1.1.0. The current status in the develop branch should be as good as finished in terms of programming. Only the readme has not yet been adapted. I want to move large parts of it to the repository wiki and then add more examples. If you have some time, I would be very happy if you could test the new features (develop-branch). What's new: Improved AppApi-dashboard Allow multiple levels to routing config (by @David Lumm, thanks for PR ?) Allow requests without an api-key: You can now mark an application as "default application". If you did so, every request without an apikey will be linked with that application. You can now set a custom response-code in case of success. Simply include your response-code number on key "responseCode" in your result-array. For example my test-function, which is called on a route in Routes.php: <?php class AppApiTest { public static function test($data) { return [ 'success' => true, 'responseCode' => 202 ]; } } Optional access-logging: You can enable access-logging in the module's configuration. After that, every successful request will be logged with it's application-id, apikey-id and token-id. Added hooks to all essential functions - that should enable you to customize the module's behavior even more. E.g. you could add custom logging on a hook, if you need that Database-scheme does not need foreign-key constraints any more. That should fix @thomasaull 's issue with db-backups. After the update, you must remove the constraint manually because I did not find a way to remove the foreign key safely in all database-environments. Multiple other bugfixes What do you think? I look forward to your feedback!

I'm not sure if this requirement is common enough it that will be considered for the core, but you can easily extend those Fieldtypes by yourself. These are untested, but they should work. It should even be possible to switch an existing FieldtypeText or FieldtypeTextarea to a non-indexed type.: FieldtypeTextNoindex <?php namespace ProcessWire; /** * ProcessWire Text Fieldtype without Index * * Fieldtype equivalent to FieldtypeText but * without creating an index on its text content * to preserve storage. * * Only use this Fieldtype if you will never search * through the contents of the field. * */ class FieldtypeTextNoindex extends FieldtypeText { public static function getModuleInfo() { return array( 'title' => 'Text Noindex', 'version' => "0.0.1", 'summary' => 'Field that stores a single line of text, not indexed' ); } /** * Return the database schema in specified format * * @param Field $field * @return array * */ public function getDatabaseSchema(Field $field) { $schema = parent::getDatabaseSchema($field); unset($schema['keys']['data_exact']); unset($schema['keys']['data']); return $schema; } } FieldtypeTextareaNoindex <?php namespace ProcessWire; /** * ProcessWire Textarea Fieldtype without Index * * Stores a large block of multi-line text like * FieldtypeTextarea but without an index on its * text content to save storage space. * * Only use this Fieldtype if you will never search * through the contents of the field. * */ class FieldtypeTextareaNoindex extends FieldtypeTextarea { public static function getModuleInfo() { return array( 'title' => 'Textarea Noindex', 'version' => "0.0.1", 'summary' => 'Filed that stores multiple lines of text, not indexed', 'permanent' => true, ); } /** * Get database schema used by the Field * * @param Field $field * @return array * */ public function getDatabaseSchema(Field $field) { $schema = parent::getDatabaseSchema($field); unset($schema['keys']['data_exact']); unset($schema['keys']['data']); return $schema; } }

Hello dear Processwire Users I am still fairly new to Process Wire and I've been looking for a Calendar solution on my Website. I wonder what other PCW Users use for their websites as i have found no Module for a Basic Calendar which I could use. I have heard that most Websites simply use the Google Calendar but i don't know if that is true. I thought that a solution that includes the PCW Backend would be pretty neat Thank you in advance!

Here are a few links to check out for PW calendars. I'm not recommending a solution here, just signposting. These are in the official PW module repository... https://github.com/ffub/MarkupiCalendar (iCalendar feeds anyone?) https://github.com/netcarver/PW-ProcessGcalEmbed (My old module) http://www.99lime.com/modules/recurme/ (Premium) These aren't (a.f.a.i.k.)... https://github.com/plauclair/Calendar https://github.com/ryancramerdesign/MarkupLoadGCal (Ryan's module) https://github.com/decadeofdefeat/church-website-processwire (Has a calendar implementation in it) https://github.com/lindquist/processwire-calendar https://github.com/UF-Asq-Fab-Lab/Scheduler Hope that helps!

Here are some of the custom skins provided for the Bar-UI, and the shortcodes used:

Generally: hidden prevents pages from being listed in menus, foreach loops and searches, but if you now the path to the page, you will be able to call it, even when being guest (meaning: not having permission to see unpublished pages). Unpublished means hidden in lists (like mentioned above) AND, for users that do not have the permission to see unpublished pages, inaccessible even via its path/URL. I assume you have that page reference construct built in the backend. There, unless actively changed, you are superuser. "Hidden" pages will appear in such a reference field, "unpublished" ones won't.