Jump to content

ryan

Administrators
  • Content Count

    12,818
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    721

ryan last won the day on October 13

ryan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

16,470 Excellent

About ryan

  • Rank
    Reiska

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://processwire.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Atlanta, GA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @Jens Martsch - dotnetic Heh, no problem, that happens here regularly too. :) Let's get back to your first video—I'm trying to figure out how to duplicate this one. I think you could be on to something here because many Fieldtype methods require a Page object, and there is no Page object associated with each image. As a result, we use a fake Page without an ID, and I'm guessing this is the source of the error you are seeing, but I can't figure out how to duplicate the scenario here. Here's what I've done to attempt to duplicate: I've started with a new instance of the "Regular" site profile, added a field-images template, and added fields to it. Logged in as superuser, I edited the /about/ page, uploaded an image to the image fields, and populated all my custom fields with text, and saved. I created a new role named "editor" and checked the box so that it has page-edit permission to "home" (which inherits through the tree). The user doesn't have any other permissions. I created a new user with this role, logged in with it, and edited the /about/ page and clicked to open the images field. I can see all the field text, and modify and save it as well, and changes are retained. So I'm not sure what to try next in terms of duplicating the issue, so I'll ask a few questions; Do you have any field-level access control involved here on your images field, or on any of the fields defined on your field-images template? Did you enable access control on your field-images template? (it should be disabled) Do you have any modules installed that add access control hooks or modify the way access control works? Do you have any optional core permissions installed? (like page-edit-created, page-publish, page-edit-images)? Any other factors you can think of? Thanks!
  2. @Jens Martsch - dotnetic Thanks for the videos. Let's focus on your 2nd example first, because I see things in first one that I don't recognize, and it looks like there is access control at the field level too, so lots of factors—let's come back to that one. In your 2nd example (blank installation) you haven't yet uploaded an image into the field, so it doesn't look to me like it should be showing any fields yet. But you are circling something with your mouse, so I'm not sure I understand. But you shouldn't see any of your custom fields if you haven't yet uploaded any files/images yet, so can you try that example again or let me know if I misunderstood? (no need to record it to a video, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something).
  3. ProcessWire 3.0.142 has a lot of updates but the biggest is the addition of custom fields support for file and image fields. In this post, we take a closer look and also outline all of the new features in the just-released FormBuilder v40— https://processwire.com/blog/posts/pw-3.0.142/
  4. Last week I worked primarily on GitHub issues, and did some of that this week as well. Likely I'll be doing a lot of this in October. Thank you for all of your reports. While there's already a lot of commits on the dev branch, I'm going to wait till next week to bump the version, as I've got some stuff in progress that I want to get committed first (more on that below). Next week I'm releasing version 40 of FormBuilder that supports paginated forms, as well as forms within forms (not to mention some other minor additions). Basically, all the stuff that was covered in this video from a few weeks ago, plus a little more. I actually think it's ready right now, but as is often the case, I started writing instructions for using the new features today and thought of a couple minor tweaks that would be helpful along the way. So I'm going to apply those early next week, finish the instructions, test it all out again, and then release it... likely mid-week next week. For the ProcessWire core, one feature people have been asking for for quite awhile is the ability to specify custom fields with file and image fields. I've been working on that here quite a bit this week, and have the initial test cases working quite nicely! Unlike the Description and Tags fields that come as built-in options with file and image fields, the new option instead uses a subset of ProcessWire's Fieldtype and Inputfield modules to support this (note: it does not use pages like repeaters do). This gives you more flexibility in defining what you want and how you want it to look. Though there are some limitations of what kinds of fields you can use here, but I think you will like what it offers and how it works. For those that just need a description and/or tags, then of course those features will remain as they are. But for those that need something more for file/image fields, you are going to have a whole lot of new options in 3.0.142. Unless I run into any roadblocks in finishing development of this part, I'll have it ready by this time next week along with a blog post that outlines it in more detail.
  5. Actually I'm still working on minor details, but I'll have it posted by 5pm EST.
  6. This week’s dev branch version brings you improvements to ProcessWire’s $input->cookie API variable, plus it adds the ability to modify system URLs and paths at runtime. This post also includes some examples to demonstrate just how useful this can be— https://processwire.com/blog/posts/pw-3.0.141/
  7. No blog post this week because I don’t have anything new or interesting to write about just yet (unless you like to hear about repairing fridges and clothes dryers). But I’ve been focused primarily on completing the FormBuilder updates that I mentioned in last week’s blog post, and it’s looking very good, though I’ve still got a little further to go with it. When it comes to multi-page forms, I’m trying to cover all of the exceptional cases where sessions expire, cookies clear, etc., and want to make sure a form-in-progress continues to work through all these situations. Multi-page forms can be potentially long and people can invest lots of time in them (relative to regular forms), so trying to make it all as resilient as possible. This takes lots of time developing and testing, so that’s what I’ve been doing. I’ll be doing some of that next week too, though also have been planning to dig back into the core issues repo and start working through some of those in preparation for a new master version this Fall. Hope you all have a great weekend!
  8. @dragan Thanks for testing it out. I don't think it's the query string, as the Toggle field doesn't work with query strings or GET var input. I'm guessing more likely is that AoS is applying some kind of customizations or JS events to radio inputs, and these are conflicting with the events that Toggle uses to make radio inputs look like toggle buttons. Why it's only affecting the "Yes" state though is strange, as I'd expect it to affect all the state, but maybe it has something to do with Yes being the first in the list of inputs, or something along those lines.
  9. Glad you found it. Any particular feature in that module that you found is interfering with the toggle field? Maybe it's something I can test with and work around.
  10. @wbmnfktr I haven't worked out all the details of this part yet. But fields in an integrated form are still present when it comes to what actions can do with them. They are just renamed to have the field name that represents the "form" field as a prefix for each field in the integrated form. So anything that maps the fields in a form to something else (like a page or spreadsheet) will likely continue to work the same way that it currently does, but would have the integrated forms "opened" (for lack of a better term) so that their fields can be mapped like the others.
  11. @teppo I'm not sure why that is. Maybe it needs me to add a version tag to it to jog things loose? Anything else you can think of I should test or try from here?
  12. @Robin S Not yet interactively, though it is possible with hooks. Though I do plan to make it part of the "Form" field settings once the field gets more mature. Yes. Existing dependencies in forms you integrate will continue to work, and you can also make fields in the main form be dependent upon fields within an integrated form. The field name for fields in an integrated form is "formName_fieldName" rather than just "fieldName". That's how you can integrate multiple copies of the same form, and still end up with unique field names. So if using dependencies, then you just refer to the "formName_fieldName" in your dependency. For existing dependencies in an integrated form, FormBuilder takes care of converting those for you, so that the dependency works regardless of where else the form is used. Each page is validated independently. It creates a partial entry on the server side (in the DB) and saves it on submit of every pagination. If there are errors on the pagination you submit, it will stay on that pagination until you fix them. Yes. Partial entries also have their own URL (unique query string) that can be bookmarked or returned to if someone doesn't want to complete it all in one setting or their session expires, etc. Yes, but probably not in the first version. Though this is part of the reason why it's setup so that partial entries have their own URL. The page number can be specified in the query string. Any pagination has access to the entire entry server side (should you want to examine anything with hooks), but the front-end/client side only knows about the current pagination. So dependencies across paginations won't work at present. If there's interest in the feature, the plan was to support it by rendering the non-present Inputfields referred to on any pagination's showIf/requiredIf values within the current pagination, but behind a hidden element. In that manner, they are technically present for the pagination's processing and front-end JS, even if not visibly present.
  13. @dragan @matjazp I setup a new toggle field exactly as shown in the screenshot, but can't duplicate the issue. Maybe it's something browser specific or maybe it's getting interference from some other module? Do you see any JS errors? Any other factors you can think of?
  14. This week we’ll take a look at a new version of FormBuilder that's on the way (with a screencast), as well as the latest version of the core: ProcessWire 3.0.140— https://processwire.com/blog/posts/pw-3.0.140-and-formbuilder-v40/
  15. This latest version of ProcessWire on the dev branch adds a new Inputfield module called “Toggle” that is an alternative to the existing Checkbox Inputfield. It also adds a nicer way to make column width adjustments to your fields when editing a template. This post covers all the details with screenshots and a short video: https://processwire.com/blog/posts/pw-3.0.139/
×
×
  • Create New...