wbmnfktr

Kind of similar as in providing snippets.

The main focus will be different and will include solutions for often used scripts like OwlCarousel and modules as well.

I want to show how certain thinks can be done in/with ProcessWire. 

I guess... we all love and use 3rd party scripts, tools, services and modules for our ProcessWire projects.

From image galleries to contact forms and newsletter subscription services lot's of things are already there and ready for use.

So I am looking for your most common used and trusted scripts, tools, services and modules.

You may ask yourself why I want to know this and before hiding everything behind curtains here is the answer:

I plan to create a collection of ready to use ProcessWire snippets for common and often used scripts, tools, services and modules.

Therefore I'd like to know what you use for your projects so I can create those ready-to-use snippets.
I already have a broad collection of snippets I use everytime but I think there could be much much more.

For example: I like to use Owl Carousel 2 and Slick slider for image galleries and/or sliders and Mailchimp as a newsletter subscription service.

The main goal is that I want to provide working solutions and answers for ProcessWire starters.
More and more questions in the forums are 3rd party related (How do I use this gallery script in PW? or How does this service could be used in PW?) and for those I want to create a copy&paste / ready-to-use collection of snippets.

So... I ask you to tell me your most used scripts, tools, services and modules. Feel free to share your trusted 3rd party options with me.

P.S.: I don't ask you for your snippets and solutions as they are your business secret and someone already paid you for it. But... if you want to share your scripts with me and the public you are more than welcome.

P.S. 2: Modules will be part of this collection

Things, thoughts and details about my project so far:

1. Idea: born
2. Domain: registered
3. Hosting: paid / sponsored
4. Scripts: in progress
5. Tools: in progress
6. Services: in progress
7. Modules: in progress
8. Free, premium, freemium: free (no ads, no tracking, no affiliate links)
9. Authors: you & me (full credits given to you)

Ideas, thoughts, questions, answers? Let me know!

12 hours ago, adrian said:

why would we want to show the banner if auto_accept...

auto-accept is like a silent opt-in until someone decides to block cookies. auto-accept doesn't hide the cookie banner at all. Without auto-accept and without user consent (allow cookies) you couldn't trigger analytics or anything else.

12 hours ago, adrian said:

It says if it's not the first, but then it allows when viewCount == 1 and then another case of displaying the banner if they haven't explicitly allowed cookies. 

That's fine, too. Visitors have a chance to opt-out. Their very first visit will not trigger any analytics or third-party cookies as they aren't at that point.

When you deal with Google Analytics, Adsense or affiliate/marketing cookies this possibility and settings are nice little helpers.

I don't want to show the banner. That's the point.

auto-accept mode + allow user to manage + user blocks cookies = banner does show up

auto-accept mode + allow user to manage + added line to .js + user blocks cookies = banner does not show up

The negative viewCount becomes relevant (at least in my case) at this point around line ~257:

// if they haven't explicitly accepted it (ie: auto-accept) then display the banner
if (pwcmb_settings.auto_accept && cookieMonster.cfg.viewCount != -1) {
	cookieMonster.ui.show();
}

I don't know if it's really necessary for you to get your head around it - at this point. Maybe in the future.

To be honest... I think my actual case seems to be kind of special.

In my case the banner doesn't show up again. 

It works as expected. Banner is gone. Cookies are set. Values for cookies are fine.

I can confirm that the latest version only supports either auto-accept mode or allow users to manage.

But by now I use both options auto-accept mode and allow users to manage without any problems.

I added one line to the cookie.monster.block function (jQuery version) to make it work.

//set cookieMonster variables when user blocks
cookieMonster.block = function() {
  
  // added to disable banner while blocking cookies in auto-accept mode
  cookieMonster.cfg.viewCount = -1;
  //
  
  cookieMonster.cfg.allowCookies = "n";
  cookieMonster.cfg.selectionMade = "y";
  cookieMonster.cfg.storedVersion = cookieMonster.cfg.version;
  cookieMonster.sendActionBeacon();
  cookieMonster.updateStatus();
}

I'm not sure anymore that auto-accept mode was the real deal-breaker here but that missing line.

Maybe the (original) author had something in mind when he/she decided not to add that negative viewCount in the block function. In my use case I need it  to get my expected behaviour while having all options (auto-accept and blocking) I want and need.

Bug or feature: Denying cookies works different to what I expected.

I allow page visitors to manage cookie settings.

Those who deny cookies get a success message but afterwards the cookie banner shows up again.

I would expect that those who deny cookies get the same experience as those visitors that allow cookies and therefore that the banner doesn't show up again.

Tested with version 0.4.0 in jQuery and vanilla flavour.

So... is it my expectation or the module/banner behaviour that needs a fix?

+++ UPDATE +++

The option auto-accept mode interferes here. Enabling this results in the slightly unexpected behaviour. Disabling this option ends in the expected behaviour.

I think the bug/feature question is answered now.

a URL field that intermittently verifies itself sounds like something I would really like (for external links/URLs).

Right now - with external URLs in mind - I think of a list of URLs that show the status codes of all links/URLs similar to Jumplinks module does for redirects. Would this be possible?

10 minutes ago, bernhard said:

please use caution until this issue is solved

While using it as page names that will never see the light of the day I will probably be fine with it.

This sounds like something I could use in some projects and therefore replace my buildCustomUniquePageName() function in those projects.

Will definitely give it a try.

Woah... that's a stunning backend!

Are there any modules or hooks in place that could be responsible for that behaviour?

How do you create those painting-pages?

Which version of ProcessWire do you use?

I just tried to reproduce that behaviour but without success.

With ProcessWire 3.0.98 I can't confirm your bug.

How do you create your pages? - in browser or via API
Which versions do you use? Process wire and modules
What modules do you use?
Do you have hooks in place?

1 minute ago, horst said:

In case of images you can let them upload what they want

I would agree with that to a certain point. Imagine your client uploads a few hundred images with 12 MB+ each.

If they explicitly ask for the possibility to upload super high-res images it's another story. 

In case of images I would limit upload sizes as in height/width and MB.

In case of videos it depends on where they were used. As a movie I wouldn't care that much about size but I would load them only on demand. As a background video I would limit size.

You only get about 22 MB?

The video I get is already way larger than that.

Just out of curiosity but will you try to downsize the homepage's size in the future?

82.6 MB is quite a big number.

I guess... we have to thank you!

This works as expected.

Tested in Chrome, EDGE, Firefox, Opera (all latest versions).

Ok... now I understand what they tried. Didn't see that very first line.

I'm using 3.3.1 right now.

I know [method] very well but only from documentations noone understands and not from productive code.

Especially with jQuery I miss often new things so maybe this is the new way to get things done. ? 

I can confirm the behaviour @iank describes but I'm quite surprised that I notice this change just as of today.

I changed line 182 from [method] to .prop to get the functionality back.

$(this).parents('.pwcmb-option-wrapper').siblings().find('.pwcmb-widget__row-cb').prop('checked', !checked);

Is it me or is [method] wrong at that and some other places?

1 hour ago, rareyush said:

I have my site on my own vps using centos and centos web panel and using default mail services there.

So... you haven't tested it with external addresses, right?

In my case it wasn't cropping the image which led to unexpected results it was only resizing. It took me hours without any results until I used a different image.

I don't know if you test with only one or several images but if there is only one image you use, please try another one.

My .jpg was more of a corrupted-Frankenstein-PNG-saved-to.jpg file. 

May sound ridiculous but you never know.