Jump to content

arjen

Members
  • Content Count

    1,215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

arjen last won the day on October 17 2018

arjen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,359 Excellent

About arjen

  • Rank
    Hero Member
  • Birthday 03/10/1982

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://arjenblokzijl.nl
  • Skype
    arjenblokzijl

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hoogeveen, The Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

18,692 profile views
  1. Hi, I agree it is a bit hidden, but it is here -> https://processwire.com/api/ref/page/#pwapi-methods-constants.
  2. Thanks for getting back on this. I'll try some stuff out.
  3. You can use the Connect Page Fields module by @Robin S. This makes it easy to connect both page fields.
  4. Thanks! This is what got me thinking as well since I use a lot of generated classes (also in PHP and JS). How well a job does purgecss do with those? I know you can whitelist classes, but it feels cumbersome to maintain it.
  5. Great looking site! I'm pretty interested in Tailwind too. I'd love to hear some pointers on your set-up and workflow? How do you guys handle the filesize? I've read about Purgecss and I'm curious how integrate this with ProcessWire.
  6. The map still seems broken. It would be really sweet if Ryan could put the website code on Github so other people can contribute as well through PR's.
  7. Sounds like a great week 🙂
  8. Ah, the or groups selector post 🙂 We really needed this a few years ago. Unfortunately Ryan did not manage to implement this. No hard feelings though since this is not an easy task. But I do believe it should be developed since this is a big USP over other rule builders. ProcessWire can really shine with these kind of data structures. I eventually created a Process module which created pages has a sort of multiplier field of InputfieldSelector. The client could scope the main selector and add groups by adding more selectors. - Main Selector template=foo (InputfieldSelector) |-- Selector 1 (OR) somevalue=bar (repeatable field with InputfieldSelector) |-- Selector 2 (OR) someothervalue=foobar (etc) This fields eventually resolved in: "template=foo, (somevalue=bar), (someothervalue=foobar)". I created another Process Module we rendered these selectors in a list and created urls (using the great ProcessPageListerUrls). This might feel like overkill, but the client wanted to query complex selectors.
  9. Enjoy your weekend too!
  10. This seems like a really nice ux update. I really like you improving existing functionality. Thanks!
  11. Thanks @tiefenbacher_bluetomato really looking forward to the demo.
  12. I don't think I would build such a system in ProcessWire. Money stuff I would prefer to be handled by a system which has some kind of Event Sourcing. But I get your idea 🙂 True. When you have 300+ fields it will become a tedious job to add another role and assign all fields. And than another role. We only needed certain fields were editable and some not. I can see your point. That being said maybe a better solution would be to create a Process module which can handle these bulk actions. Currently I'm not working on that project anymore, but I've developed the basic batch functionality in a few days work. I would love to do a UI/UX/mock-up on how this could work.
  13. I've had to correct myself we didn't even hook, but use the "What roles can view and/or edit this field?" checkboxes and the Access Toggle "Show field in page editor if viewable but not editable (user can see but not change)". We've created a process module which listed all the fields and the corresponding settings to keep an overview on all the settings of the fields. Also we made it easy to bulk edit these field settings/permissions. That being said I doubt if I understand your question right since we already have view/not-edit. We only used hooks to change the output of the fields. Apologies, these kind of requirements can be hard to understand. I think I'm understanding your need since to want view not edit permission on a page level? So to summarise: we didn't need that kind of permission, but rather a per field permissions which is already available.
  14. We've done this before by using a hook to switch a field to readonly based on the role. It is not that hard to set-up imho. In that particular set-up we had like 20 roles and a lot of permissions so adding another role/permission did not feel right especially since the roles reflected the clients organization structure. Or even replace the fieldgroup with your own markup.
×
×
  • Create New...