Leaderboard

You all are such professional designers that I hesitate sharing my site here, but it might show what Processwire can do even for 'average' users. I created this site with Processwire for the County of Ventura's Assessor's Office. It is a redo of the previous site done in ASP that was showing it's age. The goal was to provide a more modern design that would work with desktop or mobile while at the same time providing more features for the taxpayers to access data and communicate with us. While most of the County Government sites use WordPress (or similar) they graciously allowed me to give Processwire a try. I think it performs admirably, is easy to maintain, very fast, and actually fun to work with (most of the time....?). http://assessor.countyofventura.org Most of the site is handled by two main templates, one for the summary pages, and one for the detail pages. I also created a 'dummy' template to act as a folder to hold the pages for each category (to make a manageable hierarchy) . This made it easier for me to find things on the back end and mimics the front end nicely. On the back end there are several templates that hold things like forms (pdf downloads), links, glossary terms, frequently asked questions, form responses, and more. All of these are dynamically included into the front facing pages based on their content and how they relate to the individual pages. Fillable forms were the hardest part for me. I tried working with some of the free modules for this sort of thing but I could never wrap my head around them. In the end, I just did it by hand with standard PHP forms combined with using the Processwire API to save the results to the database. It works fairly well but I'm sure there is a better way. A big thank you to everyone on this forum for their help and tips both directly and indirectly, and to Ryan who makes this fabulous software available to us. Any suggestions on the site are welcome.

I'm quite sure you did, but just in case: Did you check if there is a plugin that can fix your issue? ?

Those template files need a comment that explains what is going on. I opened a GitHub issue: https://github.com/processwire/processwire-issues/issues/1806

Hi, This is called Markup Regions, it's targeted to ease templating (like Twig would do but only in PHP): https://processwire.com/docs/front-end/output/markup-regions/ If you use this, prefer to do it with the pw-region tag as it is better optimized (check the documentation). EDIT: I forgot to mention you can disable Markup Regions in site/config.php with $config->useMarkupRegions = false; Then you may also want to disable $config->prependTemplateFile if this file is no longer necessary. But if you want to use regions, you'll find in documentation that you can prepend/append/replace the _main.php tags with tags in templates, to solve the problem you are facing.

2nd time this has happened this year, 2nd time I've been brought in to fix it. Two different websites, two different clients of a small marketing business I subcontract for. Directly contributing to loss of revenue due to online ordering being down. Currently managing ~4 WP websites for clients, they're all not a fan. Currently negotiating a contract for a website and an employee at the company said "I f****ing hate WordPress". Feel free to spread the WP love here <3

If item 2 is enabled in .htaccess then PW will still handle 404s for URLs that don't conform to its rules so you don't necessarily need to change items 16A or 16B. You could do something like this in /site/init.php: $wire->addHookBefore('ProcessPageView::pageNotFound', function(HookEvent $event) { $info = pathinfo($_SERVER['REQUEST_URI']); // Redirect or do whatever if(!empty($info['extension']) && strtolower($info['extension']) === 'pdf') { $event->wire()->session->location("/find-file/?filename={$info['basename']}"); } }); Unfortunately is seems that Tracy Debugger doesn't work on this kind of 404 which makes debugging harder, but I've asked about this in the Tracy subforum and @adrian might have a solution.

Thank you all for your input. "$"s in PW proper are likely a lost cause for now. But I think I have the right solution. I dug up an old nginx rewrite rule from a while back and it works! rewrite ^/concepts/(.*)$ /downloads/?q=$1 last; So the filename in "/concepts/My_Test_File4$$$.pdf/" can now be captured via $input->get('q') unmolested.

Here's a different site I was called in to fix. The design has been screwed up because it never quite looks right and the non-designer that edited the pages didn't click the buttons that change the editor size to "Mobile", "Tablet", and "Desktop" to make sure it would look correct across all devices. The semantic HTML was destroyed because, you know, the <h*> tags are to control the size of the text, right? It murdered SEO because tags aren't being used correctly. I love ads and update notifications that have existed there for weeks and also appear to be broken. I'm not doing anything about it because I'm not contracted for it and who knows what it will break. I do like the power that this design editor gives non-developers though, when things don't look right they can just tweak all of these numbers. I mean, who doesn't know and understand the CSS box model? Surely users can rattle off the differences between px, %, em, rem, and vw. Anyway. The amount of work it takes to make sure a page doesn't look like a trainwreck is, and I mean this, a valuable use of everyone's time- just stack the time I'm getting paid to fix it on top of that. I love WordPress, I make a lot of money off of it.

Hi @BitPoet, Many thanks for this. The $urls->assets issue was the problem here. I didn't understand the difference between this and the $config->paths one so that's something new I've learned. Thanks!

It’s handled, but I wasn’t able to send a 200 status unless allowing the $ in .htaccess. I don’t know what’s going on there, I imagine it’s overridden by Apache after PW is done. Other status codes worked for me, though. Only 200 always turned into 404.

I've not come across this before but in the default install for PW3.0.226 if you add some HTML into _main.php template file: <div id="content"> <?php // template code rendered here by PW ?> </div> and then add the same html container to the template named file e.g. home.php <div id="content"> <p> Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nullam mattis eros vitae metus sodales eget suscipit purus rhoncus. Proin ultrices gravida dolor, non porttitor enim interdum vitae. Integer feugiat lacinia tincidunt. Nulla laoreet tristique tristique. Sed elementum justo a nisl elementum sit amet accumsan nisi tempor. Nulla quis eros et massa dignissim imperdiet a vitae purus. </p> </div> when rendered I dont get double content containers but just one with the Lorem ipsum... What is this behaviour called??? Is there settings for it? Can it be disabled? confusing as hell.

It should be $config->paths->assets, not $urls->assets, since you're passing a storage path on the server as the destination path, not a web link. Your code doesn't inspect $img1->getErrors(), even though the comment mentions it before checking $imgs.

Hmm. I'm using nginx and "/concepts/?fileName=My_Test_File4$$$.pdf" does print correctly. I had to work with nginx rewrites a while back and it was sort of a PITA, but this might be the way to go. Yeah, I'll try to get it to work. Thanks!

3 hours on the books, issue isn't resolved, hosting company is rolling the entire site back due to possible database data loss. Updating core and plugins didn't solve the issue. Online ordering remained down due to broken connection to the merchant service which worked before a random automated WP upgrade last week. It was already rolled back last week, site stayed online for a couple of days and then went down again. In addition to that, an unstable WP plugin API made their custom theme break and return HTTP 500. The amount of casual breaking updates in the ecosystem is... impressive.

Different site I was hired to make simple text edits and remove some menu items. What should have been a 15 minute job ended up taking an hour because the page editor completely broke and it wasn't clear what was causing it. Turns out a jQuery version changed and I had to edit the plugin code directly. This is just tacky.

PW has quite strict session spoofing protection enabled by default. It is called a session fingerprint. Take a look at the session fingerprint settings here. I would start by trying to relax this setting and try to log in again. I have encountered problems with the fingerprint when using proxies and multiple-forwarding as it is usually the case in a cloud environment. EDIT: Yes, in AWS environments, the SSL is usually done on the proxy and then internally, only HTTP is used. But I am pretty sure this is handled correctly (host rewriting and such) in order for PW to function correctly. What is your "HTTP hosts whitelist" configuration?

Solution: It is necessary to perform a $session->logout() before changing the pass of the current login user. After that, log in again. Btw: The `$u->force_passwd_change` section is only relevant for developers which uses the Force Password Change Module by @adrian. // Rough abstract... // get current (loggedin) user $u = $users->getCurrentUser(); // Important: logout current user BEFORE populating new pass $session->logout(); $u->of(false); $u->pass = 'valid-example-password'; // Probably because we end the session above, this checkbox // is not unchecked automatically. As at this point it // always should get unchecked anyway, we do it by hand, // regardless the actual status. It does no harm... $u->force_passwd_change = 0; $u->save(); $u->of(true); try { // log in with new credentials $u = $session->login($u->name, $pass); if ($u) { $session->redirect($config->urls->root."path/to/url/"); } } catch(WireException $e) { echo $e->getMessage(); }

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.

Hi @Karl_T. The module has no ability to modify the session data. It only can modify PW pages. AFAIK session data is not stored as pages. What you can do is add a custom GraphQL mutation field for modifying your session. But that would require you to learn GraphQL and the PHP library that we use. Here is how it might look like <?php namespace ProcessWire; use Youshido\GraphQL\Type\Scalar\BooleanType; use Youshido\GraphQL\Type\Scalar\StringType; use Youshido\GraphQL\Type\Scalar\IntType; use Youshido\GraphQL\Execution\ResolveInfo; $processGraphQL = $modules->get('ProcessGraphQL'); wire()->addHookAfter('ProcessGraphQL::getMutation', function ($event) { $mutation = $event->return; $mutation->addField('modifySessionData', [ 'type' => new BooleanType(), 'args' => [ 'foo' => new StringType(), 'bar' => new IntType(), ], 'resolve' => function ($value, array $args, ResolveInfo $info) { $success = false; // modify session data here... if ($something) { $success = true; } return $success; } ]); }); echo $processGraphQL->executeGraphQL(); And then the query for this could look like this mutation { modifySessionData("foo": "boblibob", "bar": 12234) } Haven't tried it. So there might be something I'm missing. But I hope this gives you the idea of how you can achieve what you want.