teppo

For regular users there are usually cheaper (and quite likely easier) options than AWS. For an example I'd like to host my sites on AWS – the tech is fun, and it'd be useful experience overall from a professional point of view – but the pricing is really high compared to regular VPS solutions. Not to mention that in most cases I really do just need a VPS, so I wouldn't benefit much from the full AWS stack ? I'm currently hosting my sites on Linode as well ($20/month), but also experimenting with Contabo. So far so good, and the pricing is a quarter of what I've been paying for Linode – in fact even less, considering that my test server has more horsepower than the one at Linode.

I think trasferring it to me would be best, whatever this means in practice ? I'd rather keep the current name if it's an option. No need to confuse folks by new forks.

That'd be fine with me. To be honest I've been meaning to fork it (under a new name) and take the concept a bit further – mostly visual / UI stuff, really ? If you edit the modules directory entry you can change URLs and the "forum name of the author". Might be enough in the short term? Anything other than that probably requires help from Ryan. I haven't been using this module much on my own projects either. For client sites I've been in the habit of always setting it up, though the modal / dropdown editing thingy is usually disabled. Basically it's just a simple way to provide necessary edit/add/profile/logout links (which should be there in the front-end anyway). Sure, I could add those links to some template file, but why bother when there's already a module for that ?

One last update for the day: master branch of the module is now at 0.5.0. This includes both the rendering features mentioned above, and a slightly more polished theming feature, where each theme can declare custom markup, styles, scripts, strings, etc. More details in the README file.

Just for a test copied this to /site/init.php, removed bd() calls (don't have Tracy installed), and it worked like a charm. 404 page gave me "test". So... another module, another hook, Tracy (?), or something else interfering? You mentioned site/ready.php and init() of an autoload module, but in my test I used site/init.php. That probably shouldn't matter in this case – though not 100% sure ?

It's true that this is a bit tedious – to say the least ? The indexer doesn't currently have stemming support or anything like that built-in, which means that it can only find exact matches. I'd love to include something more elegant, but I'd first need to find a solution that works reliably across multiple languages – at least German, Swedish, Finnish, and English, since those are the ones I personally need most, and that would probably cover a large part of the audience here. If such a feature does get added, it might also make sense to distribute it as a separate module (which wouldn't be particularly hard, really). By default the module uses "%=" selector, which I've personally preferred over "*=".This is partly because I actually want partial matches, but also because back in the days the "*=" selector didn't seem to work too well with Finnish content. This way I'm not constantly worrying about MySQL quirks, full-text stopwords, etc. Anyhow – I just experimented by changing the selector operator to "*=", and now the only hit is the "Why use Wireframe?" page, which has the word "battle-tested" on it. Default selector is configurable via site config, or you can pass custom selector in if you query results yourself, and that might actually be enough to resolve some issues already. Currently there are a lot of options that are only configurable via site config (code), but I'll probably add these (selectively) to the admin as well. It's just a lot easier to add them in code first ? (Edit: on a second thought I'm probably going to switch the default selector to "*=". Seems like it will be better for most users, and those who don't like it can always change it.) Finally, the description text shown on the search results page is pretty "dumb", currently defaulting to the value of the summary field. Obviously that won't do for sites that don't have this field, but it's there for most default profiles, so that seemed like a reasonable starting point. In my own projects I'd probably make that "meta_description|summary", since those fields will always be there, and they are pretty much exactly what a view like this needs. I'd love to create the summary from the index so that it can always (or nearly always at least) show a piece of text that matched (kind of like Google does), but since the index is essentially a whole lot of mismatched text stuck together, that would often look pretty awful. Google does these "custom excerpts" well – obviously – but even Relevanssi (which is the de facto search plugin for WP) struggles with this part and in many projects produces unreadable mess when the custom excerpt option is enabled. (Mainly because such a feature is a nightmare from a logical sense.) Awesome! ?

Another quick update: rendered search feature is now visible at https://wireframe-framework.com/search/. Entire content area (between main menu and the footer) is rendered by the SearchEngine module. The rendered version (if bundled styles are used, which is optional) should look more or less like that on most sites – obviously site styles come into play, so it may be a bit off and require tweaking, but that's to be expected ? Pager is now included as well, but on this site you'd have to search for something silly like "co" to see it in action. The default limit is set to 20 results, and the site doesn't have that many pages to begin with. The styles are organised into "themes", which currently means any number of custom CSS and/or JS files, but I'll probably expand these to include custom config files as well sometime soon. This way it should be easy to create multiple built-in themes to select from (for different frameworks or whatever). The render feature is currently only available via the dev branch of the module. I'll test it a bit more before merging to master – probably tomorrow ?‍♂️

The way markup generation is currently implemented can be seen in the dev branch at the GitHub repository – it's pretty easy to grasp by taking a look at the render settings in the SearchEngine.module.php file: https://github.com/teppokoivula/SearchEngine/blob/dev/SearchEngine.module.php#L70:L124. Instead of defining big chunks of markup in one go, I've tried to make the rendering "atomic" enough to allow for pretty much any kind of modification. Technically a framework-specific version could mean just alternative 'classes' and 'templates' arrays, and of course whatever custom styles might be needed. Not sure if I got your point right, though, so please let me know if this seems very different to what you were thinking ?

Quick update on this module: got a bunch of rendering features almost ready to ship. Still need to add paging support and may add a "fast mode" that always returns default markup (not sure how important that would really be, it's just an idea I've been tinkering with), but that's just about it. I'll probably bundle the (optional) styles – and later scripts – with the module, just to provide a decent-looking default state right out of the box (for actual use or testing). Also, I'm thinking of adding a "load more" alternative to paging, but that'll probably be a later addition. Somewhat off-topic, but I've been going back and forth with BEM: sometimes I love it, but often it just complicates things and makes both CSS and markup hard to maintain. Nevertheless, in a project like this it's just brilliant! By declaring search form, results list, and a single result as separate components, I can quite easily style them individually, not worry too much about messing with site markup in general, and it's also really easy to override just s specific part of the default styles in site-specific styles. Anyway, currently the ("full", i.e. a form and a results list) rendered state looks like this:

Each indexed field should be declared (named) in the config setting mentioned above, or via the "Indexed fields" AsmSelect field in module config. If you have a lot of fields to add, this may of course take a while, but generally unless you have a whole lot of fields it shouldn't be a major issue. Also, SearchEngine doesn't (currently) distinguish between Repeater / PageTable / RepeaterMatrix content: if they contain indexable fields, the values from those fields are indexed as part of the parent page's search index. Though now that I've said that last point out loud, I think that content from repeatable fields should only ever be included in the (parent page's) index if those fields are set to be indexable as well. I'm going to make this change in the next release ? Edit: done now (0.3.2). Repeatable fields need to be included in the indexed_fields array before their values can be stored in the index. This is really how it should've been from the start. -- Note that if you use the config setting instead of module settings for "indexable_fields", it's possible to generate that list of fields programmatically. I.e. you can define some hard-coded field names, and then merge that array with another one you generate with code. I'm not sure how efficient that would be, but it's doable at least. Additionally there are various hookable methods in the Indexer class included with SearchEngine, so if you need something more specific, you can always hook into those and change what gets indexed.

Both the list on the Modules page and the fieldtype select on field edit screen expect fieldtype module names to start with "Fieldtype". BaseFieldtypeRuntime starts with "Base", so it's grouped under "Base" on the Modules page, and also not included in the fieldtypes (wire)array managed by the core (see /wire/core/Fieldtypes.php).

Was afraid someone would ask that ? No, not really a good example. I've been testing the module at wireframe-framework.com and just now added a couple of lines of code to get a very crude results list up: https://wireframe-framework.com/?q=composer. The thing is that I don't have a clean implementation for a results list (or a search form etc.) built into the module yet – that's something I'm going to add next. I've got some sites on the way that all need this feature ?

Hey folks! Took a couple of late nights, but managed to turn this old gist of mine into a proper module. The name is SearchEngine, and currently it provides support for indexing page contents (into a hidden textarea field created automatically), and also includes a helper feature ("Finder") for querying said contents. No fancy features like stemming here yet, but something along those lines might be added later if it seems useful (and if I find a decent implementation to integrate). Though the API and selector engine make it really easy to create site search pages, I pretty much always end up duplicating the same features from site to site. Also – since it takes a bit of extra time – it's tempting to skip over some accessibility related things, and leave features like text highlighting out. Overall I think it makes sense to bundle all that into a module, which can then be reused over and over again ? Note: markup generation is not yet built into the module, which is why the examples below use PageArray::render() method to produce a simple list of results. This will be added later on, as a part of the same module or a separate Markup module. There's also no fancy JS API or anything like that (yet). This is an early release, so be kind – I got the find feature working last night (or perhaps this morning), and some final tweaks and updates were made just an hour ago ? GitHub repository: https://github.com/teppokoivula/SearchEngine Modules directory: https://modules.processwire.com/modules/search-engine/ Demo: https://wireframe-framework.com/search/ Usage Install SearchEngine module. Note: the module will automatically create an index field install time, so be sure to define a custom field (via site config) before installation if you don't want it to be called "search_index". You can change the field name later as well, but you'll have to update the "index_field" option in site config or module settings (in Admin) after renaming it. Add the site search index field to templates you want to make searchable. Use selectors to query values in site search index. Note: you can use any operator for your selectors, you will likely find the '=' and '%=' operators most useful here. You can read more about selector operators from ProcessWire's documentation. Options By default the module will create a search index field called 'search_index' and store values from Page fields title, headline, summary, and body to said index field when a page is saved. You can modify this behaviour (field name and/or indexed page fields) either via the Module config screen in the PocessWire Admin, or by defining $config->SearchEngine array in your site config file or other applicable location: $config->SearchEngine = [ 'index_field' => 'search_index', 'indexed_fields' => [ 'title', 'headline', 'summary', 'body', ], 'prefixes' => [ 'link' => 'link:', ], 'find_args' => [ 'limit' => 25, 'sort' => 'sort', 'operator' => '%=', 'query_param' => null, 'selector_extra' => '', ], ]; You can access the search index field just like any other ProcessWire field with selectors: if ($q = $sanitizer->selectorValue($input->get->q)) { $results = $pages->find('search_index%=' . $query_string . ', limit=25'); echo $results->render(); echo $results->renderPager(); } Alternatively you can delegate the find operation to the SearchEngine module: $query = $modules->get('SearchEngine')->find($input->get->q); echo $query->resultsString; // alias for $query->results->render() echo $query->pager; // alias for $query->results->renderPager() Requirements ProcessWire >= 3.0.112 PHP >= 7.1.0 Note: later versions of the module may require Composer, or alternatively some additional features may require installing via Composer. This is still under consideration – so far there's nothing here that would really depend on it, but advanced features like stemming most likely would. Installing It's the usual thing: download or clone the SearchEngine directory into your /site/modules/ directory and install via Admin. Alternatively you can install SearchEngine with Composer by executing composer require teppokoivula/search-engine in your site directory.

Moderator note: this thread is about a core feature, so I'm moving it to the General Support area of the forum. Modules/Plugins area is intended for dedicated support threads of third party modules. Thanks!

This is very much a shot in the dark, but you don't happen to have anything in place that would skip PHP entirely? Jumplinks relies on a hook to the 404 request, so some sort of caching could be causing this. Additionally I'd make sure that these requests actually land on the correct site. If you have the old site running somewhere, it could be a result of cached DNS entries or something along those lines.

I know this is an old topic, but if you include wireframe-framework/processwire-composer-installer as a dependency for your project, it has a feature for overriding the default path in the root composer.json (which in my case is usually located in the site directory). This isn't documented anywhere, but technically this should make it possible to install modules and site profiles to any directory of your choice (relative to current working directory): { "require": { ... }, "extra": { "pw-module-path": "site/modules", "pw-site-profile-path": "", } } Also what I found interesting about Composer installers is that even if a package, such as an existing module, requires something like hari/pw-module as a dependency, if you define another "competing" installer in the root composer.json it overrides the one defined in individual packages. Most modules use Hari's version of the installer, but that's not really an issue for me, since my root package defines the wireframe version as a dependency – and things just work. Feels a bit hacky to me, but technically that's how it's supposed to go ?

Could be a simple issue with the paths. When site/config.php is loaded, the working directory should be site root, so you may be going way below the level you actually intended. You could try __DIR__ . '/../../libraries/vendor/autoload.php' instead, or just './libraries/vendor/autoload.php' (in case your libraries directory is in your site root – or ../ if it's below it).

Note that WireFileTools operations work on paths (on disk), not URLs – so $config->paths->templates would have a better chance of succeeding ? One problem with file operations is that you need to give code a full write access to all your templates, etc. In my opinion that's not a good idea (considering security aspect of it), but of course this too depends on the case at hand. Personally I'd suggest going with site profiles, or using something else entirely (bash scripts or Composer or something – or perhaps Wireshell would have something that helps here?)

Might also make sense to create your own site profile, set things up there beforehand, and then install that instead of one of the built-in site profiles. If your structure generator has a lot of flags and options you tweak on a case by case basis then that might not be feasible – but if not, what you're trying to solve here is exactly what site profiles are for ? See https://modules.processwire.com/modules/process-export-profile/ for more details.

This is just a rough idea, not sure if it's going to go anywhere but I'm actually wondering if I should extend the $partials object a bit? Currently it's actually a bit silly – basically an "object oriented" way to replace <?php include 'partials/menu/top.php' ?> with <?php include $partials->menu->top ?>. If each property could be used as a function, this would allow us to pass the partial arguments: <?= $partials->menu->meta([ 'description' => 'some text' ]) ?>, etc. Or we could pass in a string, in which case a Controller method would be used to pass the data to the partial. Again, just thinking out loud here. Not sure if this makes any sense, but I'm kind of liking the idea ? Another idea I've been toying with would be subcontrollers (or child controllers, or partial controllers, or whatever terminology makes most sense). These could solve situations where you end up needing the same stuff from template to template. You can always create custom base controllers and extend them, but this might allow for easier composition.

Thanks, Ivan! ? I haven't figured out the details yet, but at some point I'm going to look into adding templating language support. For the time being all options are open, so don't really have anything else to share at this point than "I will look into it eventually". 1. Currently partials are intended as simple drop-in (include) files with very little logic. I do have some ideas in my backlog that come pretty close to this topic, but I'll have to give them a bit more thought before implementing. Wouldn't want to put something in now, and then regret it right away... ? I've often preferred render functions, i.e. functions that generate markup, in case I need to bake some logic into smaller bits and pieces of the site. A "RenderUtils" class with multiple render methods would be one solution, and of course you can already use ProcessWire's own features to render a partial: $page->renderValue(), $files->render(), TemplateFile::render(), etc. In the long term perhaps we could add some kind of a helper class to the framework for handling these situations – just not quite sure yet how to approach this. If you could give me an example or two of what sort of situations you tend to run into, I'd be grateful – would be good to know that I'm actually solving the right problem ? 2. Not Wireframe specifically, but I did build a few rather large sites with pw-mvc and RepeaterMatrix. In those cases I ended up using field templates (/site/templates/fields/) for the bulk of the RepeaterMatrix stuff. Worked quite nicely, really. I'll add a note to write a bit about this to the "Patterns and practices" page.

Hey @Mike Rockett – just wondering if you could add this module to Packagist as well? Would make installing via Composer nice and easy ? Again setting type as pw-module and adding wireframe-framework/processwire-composer-installer as a dependency would be perfect. Thanks in advance for considering!

Hey @Mike Rockett, Any chance you could add this module to Packagist? Would love to use it on my current project, but I'm relying on Composer. Would be nice not to have to install this module via Git or add the repository manually to composer.json. It would also be awesome if you could declare type as pw-module and add wireframe-framework/processwire-composer-installer as a dependency for easy installing. Thanks for considering! ??

Nice! Would be interesting to hear if you can think of anything particularly cool that your version did and Wireframe doesn't do. Always looking for new ideas ? Small update to the docs site: added a page for patterns and practices. Currently only one page there (utility classes), but will be adding more as I figure out what should be there. Doesn't make sense to bundle everything with the module or even the site profiles, so needed some place to stash this sort of stuff.

Agreed. ONLY_FULL_GROUP_BY can be quite tedious to work around, so that's a good candidate for an exception to the general rule. And, just for the reference, it's also one of the modes deemed incompatible with WordPress – so we're not the only ones who've decided that it's not worth it ?