ryan

We'll be adding more configurability to repeaters in the next version or so, including an option to have them collapsed by default (the repeater items themselves), ability to control labels of repeater items, and automatic sorting.

In ProcessWire you need to set: Who, What and Where. You've got the Who and the What, but not the Where. The "Where" is typically defined by template, though can also be controlled by hooks.

What is on line 1 column 2? That sounds like the first element in the file. I am guessing that a PHP error message is appearing where the start of the RSS should be. Either that or you have whitespace before the <?php tag in your template file. Viewing the source of the RSS feed should reveal what the issue is.

Go ahead and make your module implement ConfigurableModule, even if you don't want any interactive configuration: class MyModule extends WireData implements Module, ConfigurableModule { Add a getModuleConfigInputfields function to your class that just does this: public function getModuleConfigInputfields(array $data) { return new InputfieldWrapper(); } For data that you want to store, call upon the $modules API var like this: $data = array('foo' => 'hello', 'bar' => 'goodbye'); wire('modules')->saveModuleConfigData($this, $data); For data that you want to retrieve: $data = wire('modules')->getModuleConfigData($this); Your config data will be populated to your module automatically after __construct() but before init(). As a result, you might want to set default values in your __construct(): public function __construct() { $this->set('foo', 'hi'); $this->set('bar', 'bye'); } public function init() { // $this->foo is now 'hello' (not 'hi') // $this->bar is now 'goodbye' (not 'bye') } Using this method, your module can always access it's config data directly via $this->foo and $this->bar. Meaning, you probably won't ever need to use the getModuleConfigData() function, but it's good to know its there. However, you will need to use the saveModuleConfigData() function since you are saving configuration data non-interactively.

That's unusual. Are you getting an Apache 404 or a ProcessWire 404? If the file actually exists and you are getting a 404, chances are that Apache can't read it (i.e. file is not readable) – double check the file permissions.

Not sure how I missed that. I will correct and update to the dev branch today. Thanks!

I agree with renobird that it's pretty rough on the eyes, though I can see how it would appeal to kids. I get the impression that the designer must know his/her audience well. And we aren't that audience. But I can respect what they are doing here. I have to admit this reminds me a bit of geocities time when the web was a lot less designed, less serious, and more playful place. Not that I long for that period at all. But the period definitely had its own [youthful, tacky, random?] style about it.

I'm confused because not sure if your definition of 'user' here is a ProcessWire User, or you are maintaining your own system of users? To me it looks like you are maintaining your own user system, but not sure? This would affect the answer. I think we also need a little more context about where this code is going. Is this simply to check access on a page being viewed, or is this compiling/aggregating all access information to display somewhere? I'm guessing this is to aggregate somewhere since you mentioned looping through all the items? One thing that might be worth looking at is the PageEditPerUser module, which I think does some of what you are trying to accomplish here.

$sanitizer->username() is a deprecated holdout from PW 2.0, which didn't store users as pages and email addresses were allowed as usernames. So that's a typo on my part as the username() call should have been $sanitizer->pageName(), as users are themselves pages.

I think that file/image/page URLs in textareas are the only place where the issue can occur. It happens just because editors like TinyMCE are storing ready-to-output HTML. Everywhere else in ProcessWire (except cache files), everything is stored as references, so it doesn't matter where the site is running. Our eventual built-in solution will just ensure that any local URLs in textareas are always saved as if the site were running from root (via the sleepValue function), and prepend any subdirs to root paths at runtime (via the wakeupValue function).

I agree. We already have a hookable function that one could use to target a pageview vs. redirect (after Page::render). I've already updated Session::redirect locally to trigger ProcessPageView::finished, so it'll be in the dev source soon. I don't think it'll break any backwards compatibility just because I can't think of any module or situation that relies on finished() not getting triggered.

Sounds good. My account name is processwire. Though I've not received their activation email yet, so not sure my account is active.

Namespace aliasing is fine, but I'm really hoping to isolate our users from having to think about namespaces at all (unless they want to specifically use something outside of PW). I would gather that most of our users don't care or know about namespaces, so any extra technical verbosity reflects poorly on the simplicity of the system. I don't want people to have to have 'namespace' or 'use' statements at the top of every template file (unless they want to, again), but module files are ok. Not sure if that's even going to be an issue.

I added this to the dev branch last week, so that you can now pass additional things to $page->render(): https://github.com/ryancramerdesign/ProcessWire/blob/dev/wire/modules/PageRender.module#L212 One of the things I wasn't thinking about before is that $page->render() was already capable of accepting an array of options (though not commonly used, mostly internal). So we weren't starting from a blank slate, and had to make something that was compatible and complimentary to what was already there. In terms of API calls, you can now do any of these: $page->render($filename); // $filename assumed in /site/templates/ $page->render($pathname); // $pathname is full path, but must resolve somewhere in web root $page->render($options); // array of options and/or your own variables $page->render(array('foo' => 'bar')); // same as above $page->render($filename, $options); // specify filename and options/vars, etc. The $options variable was already something that $page->render() accepted before. Only it was used to specify some little-used modifiers to render(). Those are still there (and they are necessary), but now the utility of $options has been extended. When you want to specify options (outlined in the link above) you only need to specify the ones you want to change from the defaults (of course). Typically you don't need to change them, so I'm guessing that most would use $options to specify their own variables. Every rendered template now receives a copy of that $options array locally scoped. That $options array contains any variables you passed to $page->render(). It also contains PW's default options, should you want to examine any of them. If you made this render() call: echo $page->render('myfile.php', array('foo' => 'bar')); myfile.php could access the 'foo' variable like this: echo $options['foo']; // outputs "bar" One other addition that I'm thinking people might like is $options['pageStack']. That is an array containing a stack of pages that called render(). So if you are doing any recursive rendering of pages, any template can access $options['pageStack'] to see what page is rendering it, and any others before it. Previously this was not possible, and the only way a template could tell what other page was rendering it (if any) was for that renderer to tell the renderee, via $mypage->caller = $page; or something like that.

I understand. Well the good thing is that our code standards are mostly similar to PSR-2, without some of the oddities it has (though I suppose that's subjective). I've found that I can go to/from PW <-> PSR-2 largely with simple search/replace, so I have no problem if people submit PSR-2 code. One of the nice things about code standards is that they are generally consistent and predictable, so going between different standards is not difficult. Thanks for your interest in this. I haven't yet started here, though know that mindplay.dk has done some work in this area and ProcessWire. Ultimately I want to gain the benefits of namespaces in PW without changing the way that people use the API. If people have to \Start\Doing\Lots\Of\This in order to use PW for typical web development, then it's a failure. The end goals are in place but not yet the whole plan. The plan should start coming together within the next 1-2 months though.

You got it–a 404 should be thrown before you start outputting a page. If there is some other fatal error that occurs after you've started rendering your markup, it's better to throw a more generic WireException('your error message').

It would probably be quite easy to go between the current file format and another, especially another JSON/YAML type file. Our current file format is very simple. I'm not totally clear on the format that would be required by Transifex though. I'm also not sure I fully understand the value of these services since they can't parse the PHP source files for translation strings? Maybe I need to get in there and play.

Same here, anchor button doesn't work, and it grays the whole screen with no way out other than to exit the page. Tested in the latest Chrome. Doesn't matter whether it's normal or inline mode. No Javascript errors, so not clear about what's going on here.

The best way to have pages appear at the top of a list when they are created is to set their default sort field to be '-created' (or reverse created in the admin). But as for having a manual sorting, PW's admin will only add pages to the end of a manually sorted list.

Apeisa is correct in that inputfields can be represented as arrays, and it's fairly simple to convert them to or from arrays. In the case of FormBuilder, the forms are converted to an array and then to JSON for storage. So far the only place I've found this useful is in FormBuilder, though I'm sure there's more potential. As for manually composing inputfields or forms via arrays, I don't really like doing that because there is no interface… just a faceless array. Reminds me a little too much of configuring forms in Drupal. But I'm fine with supporting the option if people like it.

You have to enable it in your Form Builder module settings: InputfieldFormBuilderFile. On an existing FormBuilder installation, you may have to install the module before you can enable it. The $e['file'] should be an array of filenames. In the case of a single file, it would just be an array of 1 file. The actual file URL is protected from direct access, so you have to ask Form Builder to generate one for you. It's not the prettiest in terms of API access, but I think this should work: $form = $forms->get('contact-form'); foreach($form->entries()->find() as $entry) { foreach($entry['file'] as $filename) { $path = $form->entries()->getFilesPath($entry['id']); $url = $forms->getFileURL($form->id, $entry['id'], $path . basename($filename)); echo $url . "<br />"; } } Regarding submission date, Soma is correct that it would be contained in $entry['created']; as a unix timestamp.

Seems like we do need another shutdown hook of some sort here that gets called regardless of whether it was a pageview or a redirect. Semantically, it probably makes sense that ProcessPageView::finished doesn't get called on a redirect, though not sure it really matters. What do you guys think would be best of these 3 options: Make $session->redirect() call $processPageView->finished(); before exiting. Add a new ProcessWire::shutdown hookable method that always gets called. Add an optional finished() method to the module interface. Like the ready() method, but gets called automatically (on modules that have it) when the request is done.

I'm assuming the 404 you are getting is an Apache one rather than a ProcessWire one. You are seeing mod_security in action. When mod_security gets in the way of legitimate content management, then it's configured in an overly agressive manner. I would ask your host to loosen things up a bit, or if they can't, have them disable mod_security for your account.

Looks like you are on the right track there. As for the field name and/or id, I'm guessing you don't want to use the title though. In order to make sure you've got something unique, you might want to use "myfield{$cat->id}" or something like that. If you don't need to support images/files in repeaters, then it won't be too difficult. You would add one or more repeater items at the end, but make them hidden or collapsed. You could have a little javascript link that says "add item" and when clicked, it unhides the next one. Make the fields in each follow a different name format, like "myfield_new1" for the first one, "myfield_new2" for the second one, etc. Basically, some name format that your processor would know is referring to a new item it should add. Then it could process them like this: $n = 1; $name = "myfield_new$n"; while($input->post->$name) { $item = $mypage->myrepeater->getNewItem() // populate any fields in the repeater you want $item->title = $input->post->$name; $item->save(); $mypage->myrepeater->add($item); $n++; $name = "myfield_new$n"; } if($n > 1) $mypage->save('myrepeater');

The whole idea of a maintenance mode is something to be careful with on a site that depends on any kind of search traffic. It's not a great idea to make a habit of it, that's for sure. So if you need to put a site in maintenance mode, try not to do it for long. Personally, I have never had the need for a maintenance mode. Though there have been a couple times where I was pushing in a major update to a site, and I temporarily added the following to the top of the /index.php file: die("Go away! We are trying to upgrade the site.");