ryan

Administrators
  • Content count

    11,745
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    613

ryan last won the day on April 13

ryan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

14,212 Excellent

About ryan

  • Rank
    Reiska

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://processwire.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Atlanta, GA
  1. This week's version of ProcessWire on the dev branch includes some useful updates to the included AdminThemeUikit module. It also adds a new config setting for disabling HTTPS requirements in dev/staging environments, as well as some other updates: https://processwire.com/blog/posts/pw-3.0.99/
  2. That property is added by the ProcessWire installer, and reflects the date that PW was installed. Here's the purpose of it: when there are additions/modifications to the core that are potentially not backwards compatible, it will check the installed date to make sure it doesn't need to retain some backwards compatible behavior. There aren't many instances of this, but here are a couple: 1. If your PW was installed after 2017-12-15, then it uses an "ms" suffix on image variations that use the "maxSize" method on Pageimage. 2. Another example has to do with Markup Regions. These were originally introduced supporting class attributes for certain actions, and that was later removed, as Markup Regions now use their own attributes. But if you installed your site before 2017-06-21, then the legacy class attribute actions will still work, if you happen use them.
  3. Users have to select the admin theme from their profile before it's active for them. Edit your profile (where you change your password) and select Uikit as your admin theme. Also, delete your /site/modules/AdminThemeUikit/. It's not hurting anything, but you don't need it anymore.
  4. No need to reinstall anything. Try doing a Modules > Refresh in your admin. If the admin is too broken to get that far, you could also paste in $modules->refresh(); in your /site/templates/admin.php file, view a page, the remove it.
  5. The example you are referring to was not markup regions, but region() function calls. They are very different things. I think Horst may have thought I was talking about region() functions since the terminology is similar. Though I can also recommend region() / wireRegion() function calls (even if I don't often use them myself), as they are also quite useful, and I would certainly be happy to inherit a project using them. Depending on your code editor used to edit site files, they may be preferable to traditional delayed output. What you've described is not consistent with markup regions. You mentioned you would never use them, but I recommend enjoying some time with them before coming to that conclusion because I think you may view them as something different than what they are. Just like in any other methodology, it's your decision as to how you delegate front-end or back-end code, markup regions dictate nothing about that. Markup regions merely designate the target for markup, and are not really any different than delayed or direct output in that respect, other than that it's a little bit simpler to use, and a little more flexible in practice. Markup regions do not use class attributes. You can use id attributes if you want, but using pw-id attributes is independent of whatever is used in the markup. Of course, everyone prefers different methodologies, not to mention different projects have different needs, so there is no one-size-fits-all. PW supports a lot of different options, use whatever works best for your context.
  6. For the most part I've been working to wrap up a client project this week, running in ProcessWire of course. At this point I'm using markup regions exclusively on new projects, as they really add an element of fun while also simplifying development, at least in my case. Admittedly, when we first introduced markup regions, I thought they'd be a good alternative for new users (who might otherwise use direct output), and didn't think I'd be using them myself. I was wrong. After I started using them, quite awhile ago, I've found that I rarely want to use anything else. I enjoy using them, whether developing something new, or going back and modifying an existing site that's using markup regions. I'm curious if other people have also taking a liking to them? There have been some commits to the core this week, as well as some other not-yet-committed updates on the dev branch, but not enough to warrant a version bump today. So we'll save the 3.0.99 version for next week. I have been getting lots of good reports on the current PW master version, very few issue reports, and feel we've got a really good solid and stable version on our master branch right now. Just in case there's anyone that's not yet using it, I recommend the upgrade. Thanks for reading, hope you all have a great weekend.
  7. While I couldn't duplicate the issue exactly as mentioned above, I did start to see issues when using rows of columns that don't quite add up to 100% and a showIf condition was involved. There also seemed to be a bit of a random element to it when the uk-width-expand class got involved (potentially a bug in Uikit). I found I could avoid it by making sure that the columns added up to 100%, so I adjusted the threshold in AdminThemeUikit to round up to 100% when the columns add up to 95% or more. I'm hoping this might fix the issue that you observed, where your columns added up to 99%. If you get a chance to try it on the dev branch, please let me know. Thanks.
  8. This is one reason why ProCache buster supports file.version.ext URLs as an option. But I wouldn't use that option if the reason is to accommodate a proxy server issue, which by all indications no longer exists. Use it if you prefer it for some other reason (maybe GTmetrix is a valid one). From what I understand, there was a version of a proxy server (Squid) that didn't cache query string assets due to a configuration issue that was fixed like 10 years ago or more. But mention of it ended up in some O'Reilly web optimization book around the same time, and so the issue took on a life of its own, and carries on due to tools continuing to look for it, even if apparently no longer relevant. Technically, query string is simpler and just slightly more efficient because no Apache rewrite rules have to get involved.
  9. In this post we look at a new core version on the master branch, and a new version of ProCache that includes a browser-cache busting feature called Buster: https://processwire.com/blog/posts/pw-3.0.98-procache-buster/
  10. A short update this week looking at ProcessWire 3.0.97 and a preview of coming attractions: https://processwire.com/blog/posts/processwire-3.0.97-core-updates/
  11. With everything running smoothly on the new master version, we wanted to recommend a few additional steps that will help you take advantage of some of the new features. Plus a look at developing for and with ProcessWire. https://processwire.com/blog/posts/what-to-do-after-upgrading-to-the-latest-master/
  12. Like the last few weeks, most efforts this week focused on resolving issue reports at GitHub and preparing the master version. We are at a point where I think our dev branch is far better than our previous master (3.0.62), in every way, stability included. So there's no reason to delay further—3.0.96 is our new master version. This post covers all the details: https://processwire.com/blog/posts/pw-3.0.96-master/
  13. This week we take a look at something really cool we added a few months ago but haven’t told you about yet: owner selectors. We also take a brief look at what’s new in ProcessWire 3.0.95 and and the status of our next master version, which is just about ready! https://processwire.com/blog/posts/processwire-3.0.95-core-updates/
  14. Thanks to all that have been helping us to wrap up issue reports on GitHub in preparation for the next master version of the ProcessWire core. Unless any major issues surface, most likely 3.0.95 (next week) will be the next master version. Like last week's version 3.0.93, this week's version 3.0.94 continues along the same path in clearing up new and existing issue reports, and fine tuning little details for the master branch. If you come across any new significant issues please submit them in the issues repository. Or if you opened an issue awhile ago and we haven't fixed it yet, please check that the issue is still applicable and reply to let us know. No blog post this week because I don't have anything else new or interesting to write about other than this. But I am definitely getting excited about having a new master version ready. There's no doubt, this is a really nice upgrade relative to the current master 3.0.62. Have a great weekend!
  15. Just a short update this week and we work on the finishing touches for the next master release version of the ProcessWire core: https://processwire.com/blog/posts/processwire-3.0.93-core-updates/