Leaderboard

Hello and welcome to the forum! Please try to post in English if possible. Thank you. Is your code inside a function? If not, you need to echo json_encode($res) return json_encode ($res); // inside function echo json_encode ($res); // not inside function Do you see the output from var_dump() in the response in browser dev console?

Hi to Vienna ? Some of the nicest towns I have ever been. To me it seems more in line to save the content of the editor via an icon from the toolbar as well as to cancel and close the editor via icons on the toolbar. You might have more then one CKE-field on a page, so save and cancel buttons on the page do save or cancel for all CKE-fields ? What I want , is to grep the content and transfer it via http-request to my backend not to the PW-table, the content might trigger some action on my backend transfered back to the frontend etc... think of chat, monitoring. I have done that many times in severel web-apps with my own editor-fields but up to now without PW. I am just curious as how this could be done with only PW resources.

This week we've had a mixture of core updates and more work on the PageAutosave/LivePreview module. In the core we have mostly maintenance updates and issue resolutions. I'm not going to bump the version number this week as I'd like to get a bit more added to this version first. One feature request that appears in the core this week is the ability to specify colors for RepeaterMatrix item types (idea from @Ivan Gretsky). If you have any version of RepeaterMatrix and you use the current core dev branch, you can specify the background color for any repeater item type by placing a color hex code in the repeater type label (like at the end of it, but wherever). For instance, typing in #777777 (or just #777) would make the repeater items of that type have a grey background rather than the default color background. Though whatever color you choose, note that the text color is white, so don't choose too light of a color. (The hex color code is of course removed from the item labels.) The PageAutosave and LivePreview module also got several updates this week, bringing it that much closer to being production ready: Added support for automatic detection of best placement for live preview window position based on available space. It will choose the correct location and size either to the right, left, above or below your page editor window. Added support for remembering live preview window position in a cookie. So if you setup your preferred layout for editor window and live preview window, ProcessWire will continue to use it. Added a new option to support automatic replacement of individual page field values without having to add your own `pw-value-*` classes. Meaning, you can now gain the benefit of field-value updates in your live preview without PW having to re-render the page. This applies primarily to text-based fields (title, body, etc.) that are part of the page being viewed. LivePreview editor and preview windows now talk to each other with JS rather than use SSE/streaming. I found that it just works more reliably that way, puts less load on the server, and [to my surprise] also seems to be faster. The SSE option is still there in the module config, but it's no longer the default. The only time where I think SSE might be preferable is if you want to monitor changes made to the page from outside of the page editor (like from the API) in a live preview fashion, as the SSE option will pick those up too. In addition to the above, numerous minor bug fixes, improvements and optimizations were added. If you want to grab this new version (which is still a development/testing version), it's posted in the ProDrafts, ProDevTools and ProFields boards. There's more to cover with this module still. I've been so focused on it that I haven't yet started working with htmx. Though I did spend quite a bit of time in the docs and it looks amazing. From what I understand as it relates to this module, htmx could bring a lot of greatness to the front-end preview window, so I'm anxious to get into that, and even more excited to explore the possibilities it opens elsewhere in ProcessWire. Also, how awesome is it that the author of htmx stopped by to say hello and answer questions here in the forums, that made my day — big thanks to @totally not an htmx shill for joining the discussion, I hope I'll have some good questions before long too. Thanks for reading and have a great weekend!

UIKit uses four different color designations: You mentioned above that UIkit conventions only have two colors. I was just saying that there are four colors to be concerned with if you are trying to create dark and light themes. I don't use slang, but I do tend to use what are called sentence fragments if I am writing a quick note. These fragments are probably not easy to translate. I will avoid them if I can.

I noticed an issue with the regexes used for minifying the (working) output. I don't know why it didn't come up before but I just had the bug and fixed it. Still "beta" ?

@gornycreative your messages are sometimes really hard for me to read/understand. Not sure if you are native and just writing slang or just using words/grammar that I don't fully understand. But even posting your last answer into deepl translator did not produce any understandable translation. I have a guess, but I'm not sure. So I'd ask you to be more careful in your wording if possible please so that everybody (also non native english speakers) can understand what you are saying. Could you please explain what you tried to say in your last message in other words?

Thank you, copying the module to /site/modules solved the warning. After I got access to Admin, I'll configure the rest. Thanks!!

@bernhardI just haven't gotten to it yet, as it requires a PageFrontEdit module update rather than a TinyMCE one. I also have to update ProFields Table, Multiplier, Textareas and Combo to support TinyMCE. Once all of these are done we'll merge the TinyMCE module into the core.

Tailwind CSS is awesome! ?

This week core updates are focused on resolving issue reports. Nearly all of the 10 commits this week resolve one issue or another. Though all are minor, so I'm not bumping the version number just yet, as I'd like to get a little more in the core before bumping the version to 3.0.202. This week I've also continued development on this WP-to-PW site conversion. On this site hundreds of pages are used to represent certain types of vacations, each with a lot of details and fields. Several pages in the site let you list, search and filter these things. When rendering a list of these (which a lot of pages do), it might list 10, 20, 100 or more of them at once on a page (which is to say, there can be a few, or there can be a lot). Each of the items has a lot of markup, compiled from about a dozen fields in each list item. They are kind of expensive to render in terms of time, so caching comes to mind. These pages aren't good candidates for full-page caches (like ProCache, etc.) since they will typically be unique according to a user's query and filters. So using the $cache API var seems like an obvious choice (or MarkupCache). But I didn't really want to spawn a new DB query for each item (as there might be hundreds), plus I had a specific need for when the cache should be reset — I needed it to re-create the cache for each rendered item whenever the cache for it was older than the last modified date of the page it represents. There's a really simple way to do this and it makes a huge difference in performance (for this case at least). Here's a quick recipe for how to make this sort of rendering very fast. But first, let's take a look at the uncached version: // find items matching query $items = $pages->find('...'); // iterate and render each item foreach($items as $item) { echo " <!-- expensive to render markup here ---> <div class='item'> <a href='$item->url'>$item->title</a> ...and so on... </div> "; } That looks simple, but what you don't see is everything that goes in the <div class="item">...</div> which is a lot more than what you see here. (If we were to take the above code literally, just outputting url and title, then there would be little point in caching.) But within each .item element more than a dozen fields are being accessed and output, including images, repeatable items, etc. It takes some time to render. When there's 100 or more of them to render at once, it literally takes 5 seconds. But after adding caching to it, now the same thing takes under 100 milliseconds. Here's the same code as above, but hundreds of times faster, thanks to a little caching: // determine where we want to store cache files for each list item $cachePath = $config->paths->cache . 'my-list-items/'; if(!is_dir($cachePath)) wireMkdir($cachePath); // find items matching query $items = $pages->find('...'); // iterate and render each item foreach($items as $item) { $file = $cachePath . "$item->id.html"; // item's cache file if(file_exists($file) && filemtime($file) > $page->modified) { // cache is newer than page's last mod time, so use the cache echo file_get_contents($file); continue; } $out = " <!-- expensive to render markup here ---> <div class='item'> <a href='$item->url'>$item->title</a> ...and so on... </div> "; echo $out; // save item to cache file so we can use it next time file_put_contents($file, $out, LOCK_EX); } This is a kind of cache that rarely needs to be completely cleared because each item in the cache stays consistent with the modification time of the page it represents. But at least during development, we'll need to occasionally clear all of the items in the cache when we make changes to the markup used for each item. So it's good to have a simple option to clear the cache. In this case, I just have it display a "clear cache" link before or after the list, and it only appears to the superuser: if($user->isSuperuser()) { if($input->get('clear')) wireRmdir($cachePath, true); echo "<a href='./?clear=1'>Clear cache</a>"; } I found this simple cache solution to be very effective and efficient on this site. I'll probably add a file() method to the $cache API var that does the same thing. But as you can see, it's hardly necessary since this sort of cache can be implemented so easily on its own, just using plain PHP file functions. Give it a try sometime if you haven't already. Thanks for reading and have a great weekend!

I agree it is unfair to make comparisons like this. I also don't think it's very nice to come to an open source project's support board and try to convince people to use a commercial CMS. Maybe the fact that a comparison can be made at all is a compliment. But Craft is a big commercial project with a sizable team and lots of resources and money behind it. ProcessWire is the opposite of that and the comparison seems inappropriate. But since you've stated this is a comparison, I'm not sure where the comparison is — you've focused exclusively on what you think Craft does better (by your own preference), but haven't made efforts to point out the areas where PW does better. So it comes across a little bit as an advertorial for large commercial CMS at the expense of a small open source project. Throughout you are stating a preference for something in Craft and claim a similar feature in ProcessWire is "not well thought out." This is wrong. A more honest statement would be that you and I clearly have different preferences, or maybe you don't fully understand something. But that does not mean that something that differs from your preferences or understanding is "not well thought out." I would never commit something to the core that hasn't been really well thought out, that's something I take really seriously. While much of Craft doesn't suit my own (and others) preferences, and may not be "well thought out" according to how I think things should work, I'm not going to join their forum and tell them it's not well thought out. That's because I respect them and trust that it's well thought out, according to their needs and preferences. So when you start telling someone that something they've put a lot of work into isn't well thought out, that's akin to saying that you do not respect them. I make no claims about being perfect at anything, and there is room for improvement in everything. What I take issue with here are the broad, subjective and largely false generalizations, and that's what I'm replying to. I'm also concerned that anywhere that you've quoted me, you've taken a statement by me out of context, extrapolating it as proof for an unrelated conclusion you've made. For example: In that link we are not talking about ProcessWire at all, and instead are talking about the processwire.com website in development, NOT the CMS. Why would you say I'm "opposed to the idea" of accessible development? This is something I'm interested in and passionate about. I don't understand why you are quoting me on one thing and saying another. In that link, I'm writing about a module called ProcessUser and something that is imposed upon it for a specific security purpose, unique to that particular module, and no other. But you have used my statement as proof that building custom features in ProcessWire isn't encouraged or supported. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have never had such a thought. My thoughts and intentions would be exactly the opposite. What you consider an advantage, I consider a major disadvantage. PW puts nothing between you and PHP, by design, that's a major advantage. I certainly would not be happy with Twig integration being a default. Clearly you like using Twig, which is fine for you to have that opinion, and I think it's perfectly fine for Twig to be an option. But I definitely wouldn't want to standardize upon it. Maybe it doesn't suit your preference, but I hope you can appreciate why we don't do things like that in PW. You are comparing two different kinds of caches. You are talking about a template engine cache. In PW there is no template engine, so likewise no template engine cache. Most of the time you would never need such a cache in PW at all. The $cache variable is something different, and while it can also cache markup, it is much more simple than you imply. PW's API is not string-based. You are writing about selectors (and specifically selector strings), not the "API". ProcessWire lets you specify selectors as strings or as arrays. Most prefer to use strings due to the simplicity of it. But this does not mean that arrays are not reliable. And if you use arrays, then there's no need to do value sanitization. But the majority of the time you are using selectors, you are not injecting user input into it either, so I would consider selector strings to be a major advantage for PW the vast majority of the time. And for times that it's not, you don't have to use it. The problem with chaining methods for this is that they are live code, you can't store them. Perhaps it has benefits in Craft, but they would not be appropriate for PW. In PW selectors can be specified as arrays or strings, and in cases where you want to separate the query property from the query value, then that's why we have the array option in PW. And yes, they are reliable, despite your claim that they are not. The same is true in PW. Fieldtypes build the query and sanitize/validate the value to be queried. The only thing PW asks you to do is IF you are using a selector "string" that ALSO happens to contain user input, then just sanitize that user input part with the selectorValue() method. If you are using an array, then such sanitization is already done for you. This has nothing to do with details of a fieldtype, which will do its own validation/sanitization. Saying "clunky" is a subjective and hardly fair statement to make. What might be clunky to you is optimal to others. You are writing specifically about the file translation system, so the whole purpose is to provide an interface to translate your site php files (primarily template files). The interface is geared to focus on that task only, and that's the point of it. I understand you value more layers between things (like with Twig), but I always prefer fewer layers, a more direct approach, so you'll see that throughout PW. If I'm using a file translation system, I want to know what file I'm working with and I want to be able to tell the translator what file to work with. That my preference, and I understand you have a different one. Of course you can, that's who it is for. Yes they are grouped by file, and that's how I prefer it, and I have never had a client have a problem with that. If you have some preference to keep translators/clients out of the admin, you can also ask them to translate from a spreadsheet (exported from PW) and PW will happily read that in and use it. None of those 3 statements is true. Translations may be stored in JSON files, but they can be exported/imported (all files at once) to/from CSV files. Translation files are not stored in "random" locations. They are stored with the language's files, which is a static location identified by its ID. Adding translations in the code editor is not impossible, because where else would you add new translations, if not in the code? If you need a new translation, go ahead and add your __('text') in your code, and it immediately becomes available as a translation. You are welcome to your opinion, but as someone that put a lot of thought and effort into field translations, it's hard for me to take your opinions seriously when you state things like this. Nothing about them is "tacked on" or "not well thought out", quite the opposite. So to me it seems like at worst, you don't understand what you are talking about, or at best (and most likely), you just have an alternate preference. This is fine, but I don't think that's obvious to everyone reading. So please don't make statements like "not well thought out" when you really mean that something doesn't suit your preference, or maybe you don't fully understand it. I appreciate examples but I'm not aware of any field where you need to "add the second language's field manually". This does not sound at all like PW multi-language fields. If you are talking about PW at all, perhaps you are talking about the "language alternate" fields option? If so, this is an option that is there to provide additional flexibility for specific cases, but it is almost never used in my experience. Please don't use it as a foundation for any comparison, as its borderline deprecated at this point and I don't expect many will ever use it. This conclusion is the opposite of the truth. The fact that PW doesn't impose a specific framework upon you means that all options are open. Anything is available to you. It is more open, not less open. It's you and PHP, and anything you can run in PHP you can run in PW. ProcessWire feature approach is built around constant improvement. It is driven by the community and the needs of clients. The development of PW has always followed this approach. I have a job working with clients just like most PW users and so I develop according to what's needed and when. Most of my income comes from client work. I work on the PW core for free, so development usually has to have some crossover with the other projects that I work on. Despite being open source and largely unfunded, the fact that PW and Craft can end up with apparently similar capabilities and feature sets—and the fact that they can be compared at all—I would consider to be a sign of efficiency and that we are doing something right. If you consider our approach "chaotic" then fine, but the accurate terms would be "flexible", "sustainable", "consistent" and "continuous". The approach been very successful for PW as a project. And PW is also one of the longest lasting projects in this area (open source or commercial), and will continue to be because it's not built around money. I don't add features without completely thinking them out. That's silly, why would we do that? I would never commit something to the core that has not been well thought out. I don't understand why you would say this unless you just don't understand it. Nothing committed in the core has been abandoned. Elsewhere, I've abandoned a ton of code, but most of it has never been seen by anyone. When I commit something to the core, I've spent a lot of time working on it and I'm also committing to supporting it, long term, for as long as there is value in it. That's another reason why I take a lot of time to think through anything that gets added. You are welcome to say that you have a different preference, and you can I clearly have different preferences, but please do not suggest something is not well thought out because that is not true. Well, I'm glad you think there are "hundreds" of features that look cool... though not well supported? I don't know what we're talking about. False. The only bugs that don't get fixed are those where they cannot be duplicated, or that don't have a clear solution and seem to be isolated to one person. And I don't know what you mean about "don't work well with each other and so on". ProcessWire's core focus is already a limited feature set, where much is left to modules. The aim is to have everything you might "need" and do it really well, but save things you might "want" for modules. This is one area where it certainly does help to have a big commercial company behind it, with full time documentation writers and such. While they do have a structure and hierarchy, I understand it may not be exactly the way everyone might want it. The site search engine is actually quite powerful and searches the API and all documentation pages, so I recommend that when you want to find something specific. This is fair, and it'll continue to be that way, the blog posts can do heavy lifting in between the time that features are added and documentation is updated (as does this forum). The blog posts do also end up as the linked documentation for features in some cases. I'm okay with it. I understand that if we were a big company it might be odd though. I don't put efforts towards pretending that PW is a big company, I work within the resources we have, putting most of it towards where it counts and less of it towards pleasing critics. The aim is that all versions are compatible, meaning you can safely upgrade from any older version to any newer version. I don't know of any other projects that do this as well as PW, so I would consider it a major benefit. If we get to the point where this is regularly not the case, then we likely would adopt semantic versioning. But the need isn't there at this point in time. Close, but not totally accurate. New versions are currently aimed at a group of new related features or a group of issue fixes. The version number goes into systems that prompt people to upgrade, at the time it is appropriate to do so. They are also for documentation purposes so that we can easily reference them in "since" statements. Lastly, it's useful to have version numbers to reference in blog and/or forum posts. Currently this system of version numbers is the most beneficial one for this project. This isn't what I'd consider a breaking change. This is something where it just asks you to install a module as part of an upgrade to the version, it doesn't break the API or the site, just locks down a specific admin feature for security until you install the appropriate module. And security always comes first in PW. But I don't think there are any actual breaking changes in PW. Again, if it became commonplace like it is in other projects, then we'd likely adopt the same version number approach they do. So perhaps that's something that will come in the future, but we're not at that point. I'm open to it at the appropriate time. A "template file" is a "file" for a "template". I don't know how to be any more clear than that. But yes there are instances where we're talking about template files that I might use the term "template" rather than "template file" since the context is established. I agree that terms like "template" and "file" are fairly generic, and it would be nice if templates were like cars where we could refer to the "car" but also have a label like "wheels" and know we are still referring to the bigger "car" above it. But "file" is a generic enough term that while accurate, needs context. I'll take it as a compliment that you consider RepeaterMatrix to be so valuable. The Pro modules were never intended to be "required" for any site. They are meant to be a luxury or a time saver, but there's nothing you can do with any Pro module that you can't do yourself by some other means. Though Pro modules might save you time in doing it. I've built example modules that show you how to do do just about anything that Pro modules can do, they just might require more of your effort. The original intention for Fieldtypes and Inputfields was that everyone would build their own according to their needs, but I don't know many that do that other than me. Have a look at FieldtypeEvents sometime to see how simple it is to do. I don't share your opinion on this. If you are of the mindset that the page tree reflects the front-end site 1-to-1 then you are in the mindset of a different system. I consider the tree to be essential, a major benefit, as you know everything has a place and hierarchy and you don't have to have various different kinds of navigations or buckets to find them. If you know one thing you know everything in PW. I've never been a fan of different bucket systems and the ambiguity that they introduce. ProcessWire was designed from the beginning to get away from what you are talking about, what I subjectively feel is a mess in other systems (again, my preference). PW aims to be simpler and more flexible than that, though pages can still be browsed as a tree or as buckets, even if the tree is the source. I don't agree with your premise, or the linked post. Having a link to someone else's opinion does not make it right, maybe just right for you personally, that's fine. I would agree that there are benefits to letting the page tree influence your navigation, but there aren't drawbacks to not using it that way either. It may have started that way. While I am currently the gatekeeper in terms of maintaining the core I consider ProcessWire to be a long term community developed project, and it becomes more that every year. Every open source project needs someone to start it, and someone to be a caretaker, ensuring the quality of it, and I see that as my role, which I take very seriously. But this is a team project and one that is much more sustainable long term than a commercial one.

$markup = array( 'item_content' => "<div class='InputfieldContent {class}'>{out}{error}{description}{notes}</div>", );