snck

Hey @Mike Rockett, thanks for this module! ? I was wondering whether it's already possible to exclude certain languages, e.g. using a hook. I have a website that has a few languages installed, but one language is used only for internal stuff and the pages should not be accessed from the outside. What can I do to prevent MarkupSitemap from outputting links to page versions using one specific language completely (even if the language version is "active" on many pages)?

Thanks for the input, @ngrmm! After further investigation, it became apparent that the editor who was experiencing the problem always accessed the backend of the website via a bookmark that referred to a URL with a www subdomain. Since the www subdomain is not set up as a host in config.php, the "View" link always points to the domain without www. Presumably the session cookies were running on the subdomain, which were not classified as "same site" by the browser and/or cookie policy, which may have led to the 404 error. For me, this has now been resolved. I was at least able to solve the problem for the editor by using a rewrite rule that redirects all traffic for the www subdomain to the main domain. Since then, the strange behavior has no longer occurred.

I have a strange problem with a site that I was not able to solve until now. I have a website running on domain.com (which is also the only entry in the hosts array). If an editor (or me as superuser, but for me this is happening only sporadically) is logged in (also using domain.com/processwire/), they cannot access an unpublished page using the "view" link, but get a 404 error page. If the previewed url is changed from domain.com/xyz/page/ to www.domain.com/xyz/page/ manually in the address bar, the page is viewed correctly. There is no .htaccess rule for www redirects in place and I have disabled ProCache for debugging purposes. What makes it even more bizarre: Sometimes if the user logged out and is logging in again, they get redirected to the page they wanted to view directly after submitting the login form. Has somebody experienced a behaviour like this before? As I am not able to reliably reproduce this behaviour, I feel a little lost. At first I was thinking that this problem is related to some network configuration/filter/firewall stuff on the client's network, but as I was also facing it a few times, I am really confused. Is there any configuration on the webhost side that could cause issues like this? Any input is appreciated! Thanks, Flo

@Juergen After testing with a colleague we found some points that could probably be addressed: Translations: German translation shows "VERöFFENTLICHT" (instead of "VERÖFFENTLICHT"). Maybe it could just be "veröffentlicht" (no CAPS, but bold)? If you have set a publish date (in the past) and save a page as unpublished, you get a warning, that the page will be published on the next run of the cronjob (same for unpublish date...), which is fine. We were asking ourselves, whether the method that is triggered by the cronjob should also run on page save (for pages that have values in the module's fields). This way the warning could be changed to something like "you have set a publishing date in the past, the page can only be unpublished, if you clear the field...". We think that (although the message that is shown is clear about the effects) it is not the best possible experience that a change has an effect, but only for a short time and changes back automatically after that. Warnings might not be read everytime. Page tree: If a page is published (because of a publish date in the past) and gets unpublished directly in the page tree, the warning mentioned above is not shown (because it is an ajax request) and the user will not notice, that the page will be published again soon (only if he reloads the page tree manually). I do not know, what the most elegant solution is, but I think, hooking $pages->[un]publishReady() and "stopping" the (un)publish action if it is against the settings in the module fields (and outputting a warning that explains the reasons) would be a solution that also solves the problem mentioned above. As I said, the improvements are huge already. These are no necessary changes, but suggestions on how the module could become even better. ?

@Juergen Thank you! ? We are still testing it, but it's looking good! A massive improvement over the previous versions. ?

@bernhard You are completely right! ?‍♂️ We can consider that solved, I guess. Thank you!

Hey @Juergen, thank you! That was so quick that I am not sure whether I can test and implement it before you release the next version. ? Visually it looks great to me! ? But I think, the method should be "smart" and also check whether the module has "fired" yet or if it will in the future (which should not be to hard as it is just a date comparison). I think the big value in highlighting pages in the page tree is in reminding the user that there WILL be a change to this page. The user should not be bothered by pages that already have been (un)published by the module and there could be a lot of those. You could even include a tooltip that gives detailed information on the (un)publication of the page if the user hovers over the clock icon like "Will be (un)published on XX.XX.XXXX – XX:XX:XX". I really love how quick you implement feedback. Thank you again! ?

@Juergen No worries! I am looking forward to it and happy to test, when it's ready. ?

And I just had another idea ?: Pages that will be changed by the module in the future could also be marked in the page tree, e.g. prefixed with a "clock" icon.

Great news! ?You could even attach a hook on page save that triggers a warning if a published page is unpublished manually, but will be published by the module again in the future (could work analog for an unpublished page that is published manually, but will be unpublished because of a "publish_until" date in the future).

I would disagree on that. If you only want to schedule publication of some of your pages, you would not expect anything to appear in these fields on pages that have been published manually. In contrary I think it is misleading this way, because it looks like the publication had been scheduled, although it was not. I think it is much clearer if the fields give a clear indication of the user's intention: Blank = nothing happens Filled = publish/unpublish at this date/time Imho the page status is handled by PW and editors should be aware that they can publish and unpublish pages manually. Your module is a great addition, but in my eyes it should enhance the core functionality by offering a way to schedule publishing/unpublishing without forcing additional actions or altering page data. Maybe it would be a nice addition to show a status in the fields that informs the user about the effect of the module like that (in an InputfieldMarkup or as description of the fieldset): Page is currently PUBLISHED, no settings have been applied Page is currently UNPUBLISHED, will be published on XX.XX.XXXX – XX:XX:XX Page is currently PUBLISHED, will be unpublished on XX.XX.XXXX – XX:XX:XX You could even make it really fancy and include a countdown or something like that. This is of course just a quick thought and I do not want to "order" new features. I just wanted to address the user experience aspect and make a suggestion how it could be improved.

I have a strange issue with a page's modified property. I am using the following code to get the timestamp of the last modified page's last modification: $selector = 'parent.template=artworks, template=artwork, pj_kub_published=1, pj_kub_images.count>0, include=all'; $last_modified = strtotime($pages->getRaw($selector.", sort=-modified", "modified")); pj_kub_published is a checkbox. It is used to determine whether a page should be visible or not. When the checkbox is changed on a page and the page is saved, I expect $last_modified to represent the modification timestamp of the page with the latest edit (timestamp of page save). This works if I check the checkbox (pj_kub_published=1) and save the page: $last_modified = 1714047595 But if I uncheck the checkbox and save the page, the timestamp in $last_modified becomes some time in the past: $last_modified = 1714030794 The date/tim shown in the settings of the page edit dialogue is accurate though. This is really annoying because I am caching some output in files and use this timestamp to determine whether the cache should be renewed. I have found no explanation for this behaviour. Already tried diabling $config->dbCache without success. Without the selector the result is as expected and changes on every page save: $last_modified = $pages->getRaw("sort=-modified", "modified"); Is there anything I am missing here or any other way to get an (accurate) timestamp of the last modification of certain pages using the api? Is there some kind of query caching involved?

Why would it? The page status is handled by PW. Why would your module need to change values if I publish a page manually?

@Juergen, thanks for your quick reaction and taking care of the issue! I would appreciate a solution that does not populate dates automatically (e.g. setting a "from" date not for unpublished, but only for published pages). In my opinion the module should only read and interpret these values.

Hi @Juergen, unfortunately I have a problem again or maybe I am just really confused on how the module should work or might have worked in my case before. I have JkPublishPages enabled for one template only. This is an article page (news_article). Editors should be able to schedule publication of articles by selecting a date and saving (as unpublished). I would expect that JkPublishPages works in the following way: If no date (jk_publish_from or jk_publish_until) is given, the page status stays completely untouched (unpublished in my case) If jk_publish_from is given, JkPublishPages changes the page status to published on the first execution of LazyCron (after the selected date) If jk_publish_until is given, JkPublishPages changes the page status to unpublished on the first execution of LazyCron (after the selected date) Please correct me, if this is not the intended behavior. In my case whenever I create a new page or change an existing page, the jk_publish_from field gets populated automatically on page save with the current time, although I save the page as unpublished and keep the field empty. This in turn results in an (unwanted!) publishing on the page on the next execution of LazyCron. I think that the problem is in the following part of the code (lines 412ff): protected function setPageStatusManually(HookEvent $event): void { $page = $event->arguments(0); // check if jk_publish_from field is present on the given page if(!is_null($page->jk_publish_from)){ $from = true; bd($page->jk_publish_from); if ($page->jk_publish_from) { $from = $page->jk_publish_from < time(); bd($from); } else { $page->jk_publish_from = time(); bd($page->jk_publish_from); } $to = true; if ($page->jk_publish_until) { $to = ($page->jk_publish_until > time()); } if (!$from || !$to) { $page->addStatus(Page::statusUnpublished); } } } If jk_publish_from is empty on page save, it gets populated automatically. Is this intended? Shouldn't the module only act if a value has been (explicitly) added by the user? The editors brought up this issue because they often draft new articles without knowing the puplication date in advance. The drafts shall of course stay unpublished until they are ready to publish and explicitly scheduled or published manually. Your clarification is highly appreciated! Best Flo