arjen

Reminds me of a particular CMS ? This is equally true when using BEM-like methods. Even if you are using content-agnostic components (hint) it is very hard to maintain CSS in large projects. Especially in teams where more devs are involved. With the rise and rise of Vue and React this becomes somewhat more manageable if you scope your css to your component, but still... That being said: I'm currently working on a large project for myself and I am speeding up my development flow faster than I could imagine using Tailwind. And I used to be anti concering utility classes ?.

Meanwhile most stuff has been fixed and we're going to clean up and upgrade ProcessWire with proper multilingual set-up in one installation.

I might have some experience on this matter ? @Haagje R. you've got a PM.

I can't agree more. Of course there is a logical explanation behind the current situation - there mostly always is. But the open PR's could easily be interpret as a "stale" project. Of course this is not the case as ProcessWire is one of the most worked on CMS. By mostly one guy (not to undercut the other module contributors, lots of love there). Which on itself is pretty amazing. Therefore this is true too: ProcessWire finds itself positioned in a very difficult spot. To clients this isn't very much a problem, since I always find it to be reason of the professional to sell its tools to their client. But selling the CMS to other developers/companies is a lot more difficult. There are quite a few pain points such as the open PR's, the first impressions of the master branch (last commit: 21 dec 2018), the already dated design of the website, the lack of github stars. When I Google for ProcessWire the repository of Ryan is even on a higher position than the current repository (last commit: 7 Oct 2016). The notice on top isn't very clear. These are not important to me*, but first impressions do matter. [off-topic]We should really highlight these strong points: the really great custom field CMS, the speed of development (example: the .wepb support), the great (paid) modules, the great community, second-to-none multilingual support, the great documentation and the greatly written blogs too! Ryan has his way with words.[/off-topic] * I had to look twice myself ?

Agreed. It makes sense from a security point of view, but I've encoutered numerous people who browse in one browser while their default browser is another one. They are not even aware.

I don't think Ryan will read this. You would have more luck if you create a request on Github.

Hi, I agree it is a bit hidden, but it is here -> https://processwire.com/api/ref/page/#pwapi-methods-constants.

Thanks for getting back on this. I'll try some stuff out.

You can use the Connect Page Fields module by @Robin S. This makes it easy to connect both page fields.

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.

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.

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.

Sounds like a great week ?

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.

Enjoy your weekend too!

This ?

This seems like a really nice ux update. I really like you improving existing functionality. Thanks!

Thanks @tiefenbacher_bluetomato really looking forward to the demo.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks Ryan and horst!

Looking good! Thanks for posting. @Martijn Geerts reminds you of something? ?

Ah, the good old -dev approach. That might work here too. I used to have it everywhere, but I've switched to more generic config.php which reads a config.ini which is outside my version control. The big disadvantage here is when you have a lot of customisations in your config.php. Thanks for reminding me.

How do you guys handle developing on local machines regarding Multisite? Often I download the production database and I have different config.php, but I'm starting to dislike that approach ? I can off course put all the environment stuff in an .ini and read with parse_ini. $config->MultisiteDomains = array( 'www.realdomain.com' => array( 'root' => 'www.realdomain.com', 'http404' => 1045 ), 'realdomain.localhost' => array( 'root' => 'realdomain.localhost', 'http404' => 1045 ), 'www.anotherrealdomain.com' => array( 'root' => 'www.anotherrealdomain.com', 'http404' => 1046 ), 'anotherrealdomain.localhost' => array( 'root' => 'anotherrealdomain.localhost', 'http404' => 1046 ), ); I have a lot of domains in the multisite. Would love to hear your approaches.