szabesz

Generally speaking ProcessWire v2 modules should work under ProcessWire 3.x. The big change was to use namespaces in ProcessWire 3 but PW's "compiler" should take care of it in case of PW v2 modules. https://processwire.com/blog/posts/processwire-3.0.14-updates-file-compiler-fields-and-more/#file-compiler-updates If a module doesn't have a namespace, then FileCompiler will compile it to make it run under ProcessWire 3. Sure, there could be other issues as well, but it looks like a basic module using the PW API and was coded by Ryan, so I guess it works. Give it a try ?

Thanks for the tip @LMD It is worth to note the new "tags for fields" search "shortcut" of ProcessWire 3.0.106: https://processwire.com/blog/posts/pw-3.0.106/ I guess title|field_a|field_b in your example could be simplified too by using this new feature. Provided it supports "named selectors".

Hi, have you solved it yet? I'm asking this because if not, can you please clarify what you are after? I'm not following you...

What if that required image one day becomes non-required? Usually I try not to rely on such settings.

If I'n not wrong, @kongondo's VisualPageSelector module (commercial) should solve such an issue as it uses lister and its filters to select the related page: quote: "electable pages as per page field settings + Lister filters" see more: Or you might want to implement your own InputField which also uses ProcessWire's Lister and its user customizable page filter to select the page.

I am yet to check out this module so I am for sure not the best person to answer this questions, however I think if you just write a short manual migration guide and prevent accidental upgrading then it should be enough for us developers.

Sure, the example does not cover "everything" but some part of the screen. On a PW edit page, the most important bits of information are usually at the very top, so anything covering that area "automatically" is not something I prefer. Sure, when we start typing results start to cover that area but I'm not fond of covering anything just by getting the focus into the search box.

What about a command AND the icon too? Maybe optionally. I do not like panels automatically covering anything.

You linked to two completely different codebases: The "original" looks ProcessWire based: https://whatcms.org/?s=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livius.org%2F https://builtwith.com/livius.org while this one is a table based – just look at the htlm source – oldschool site: https://whatcms.org/?s=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.witteneushoorn.nl%2F https://builtwith.com/witteneushoorn.nl

Let's say you have custom "non-pw" db tables. +1 This sprung into my mind too when reading the post. What about being configurable? For example, I would prefer: --?

Slightly OT but worth a read: Open Source GraphQL Engine Launched https://www.i-programmer.info/news/197-data-mining/11962-graphql-engine-launched.html quotes: "The GraphQL community can harness our lightweight GraphQL-as-a-Service engine and turbocharge any of their new or existing Postgres applications." "While this release focuses on Postgres, the plan is to add support for other databases in the future."

https://www.i-programmer.info/news/83-mobliephone/11963-ten-years-of-the-apple-app-store.html some highlights for TL;DR readers: "...if it was a free market, then Apple would not have made more than an estimated $100 billion over the time, but programmers would be that much better off." "No right of appeal and if you talk to journalists then Apple has no intention of helping you at all. That this is an authoritarian regime isn't a point that you can argue against." "Windows Apps are almost as locked down as iOS apps. Only Google made the stupid mistake of letting Android go open source and it has been working steadily to take control back ever since. Assuming Android is still around in ten years time, my bet would be that the Play store will be just as much a walled garden as the others." "The App Store is mostly full of small apps that do frivolous things - it's a trinket store. Let's get back to real computing."

A short but good summary on isset() / empty() / is_null(): https://www.virendrachandak.com/techtalk/php-isset-vs-empty-vs-is_null/

This sounds awesome! I can offer my humble testing skills even though I'm not having too much free time these days but this project is more important than ever (thinking of GDPR compliant backups, ie. encryption for backups). Last time Flydev could not reach out to too many active testers, so now I encourage anyone reading these lines to join in and offer testing – maybe even development – help to Flydev in advance if you can really do it when he needs it. Also, please do not just hit the like button but reply with suggestions too ? BTW, my first suggestions is: besides being GUI friendly, the new module could also be cli friendly: meaning wireshell integration.

Featured in ProcessWire Weekly #215. Thanks a lot for sharing @bernhard!

Hello, I'm just kinda shooting in the dark, but your issue sounds like it is being cookie related. For example, you might want to check things like: "I could not log in because the session.refere r_check in php.ini was set to the wrong domain." [source] Maybe both PW instances create the same cookie somehow? [source]

In that case you have two options: client-side image resizing ImageMagick if supported by already or can be added to PHP as your php is probably using GD currently, right?

Great! There might be cases when updating a system with "field name == tag name". Is there any warning implemented fur such a scenario? EDIT: or tags/fields are created via the API rather than the admin.

Maybe it is mod_security in action again? Here are some other tips: also, you can search like this: https://www.google.hu/search?q=mod_security+JSON+Parse+error+site%3Aprocesswire.com%2Ftalk Hope this helps, if not, please tell us what you have tried so far to find the cause of the issue.

Thanks for the new features Ryan! Just one question though regarding the new $pages->find tag search feature: what happens if there is a field and a tag having the same name (ie name collision)? Does field name take precedence?

Well, sort of. Let's look at the example of Artisjus which is the official authority in Hungary dealing with licensing music. Over here, popular artists profit from this system while not so popular artists suffer from the bureaucracy, not profiting from it at all. Taking this a step further into just "quoting bits of text with proper credits included" is just ridiculous. Also, forcing content providers to implement software and hardware to automatically filter content which might probably need licensing is short sighted and arrogant. Also, who is going to pay for the implementation and maintenance of such "system-add-ons"? It is just so easy to come up with new taxes but seeing the consequences is a different matter.

This is great! Thanks a million for sharing!

I put together my very first website about 22 years ago. It was all <tr><td> and images but I could only concentrate on the visual aspects, no one really cared about anything else than that (except for file size of course...). Yep, those were the golden days for sure.

The EU is supposed to be all that or am I mistaken?

Currently I do not have to pay for publishing this: "...seeks to impose a link-tax: which would establish a special copyright-like fee to be paid by websites to news publishers, in exchange for the privilege of using short snippets of quoted text as part of a link to the original news article but also to make this an inalienable right, i.e. one that cannot be waived by the publishers even when they choose to do so." But if those money hungry idiots push this thorough, I will. Or I will just simply stop cross-linking: http://www.i-programmer.info/news/81-web-general/11893-why-article-13-must-be-stopped.html Money talks. Insane.