szabesz

Could you please post your current ("cleaned up?") code? When you post it, you might want to put long blocks of code in a "spoiler" (eye icon in the toolbar) so that the whole thread is easier to follow.

These days rarely but one never knows

One of ProcessWire's strength is its .htaccess file. I've never come across another CMS which such a useful one. A lot of security and other issues are taken care of, most of the time we just have to read the inline comments and comment/uncomment lines. If that is not enough, ProcessWire's documentation is adequate in this area, but just in case one runs into issues not yet documented, this forum is full of help. For example, I wanted to remove www from the domain, and in the forum there is a good solution to do just that. Sure, first impression does matter but .htaccess issues can be complex, and most of the time ProcessWire just runs without modifying anything in .htaccess.

@Roych I pasted your code of the first post and it has syntax errors, so you should sort those out first. I recommend you follow guidelines such us: https://www.ntchosting.com/encyclopedia/scripting-and-programming/php/php-in/ In the article there is the "Possible yet not recommended usage:" section. Do not do that For example, do not do this: <?php foreach($pages->find("parent=1034") as $item) { echo "<li><a href='index.htm#' data-filter='.{$item->select->category}'>$item->title</a></li>"; } ?> instead: <?php foreach ($pages->find("parent=1034") as $item) : ?> <li> <a href='index.htm#' data-filter='<?= $item->select->category ?>'> <?= $item->title ?> </a> </li> <?php endforeach; ?> Much cleaner and a harder to make mistakes. But most importantly, do not mix coding styles

@fermion Ok, I will find the time to post that request. Night-night!

You are quite right. Currently this requirement in completely undocumented, however it should be. Such a hint is not enough, this issue deservers more than that. Could you please add a request similar to this one: https://github.com/processwire/processwire-requests/issues/148 You might want add the links to @jmartsch's example in this topic and to these topics as well: https://processwire.com/talk/topic/16967-confused-about-server-locales https://processwire.com/talk/topic/15691-warning-about-server-locale-after-update-from-3052-3053-help/

+1 Still, I've never come across this issue before but now that I deliberately made a mistake I see that it works just as you described. Just to point out, PW does not "zap anything", this is how a form works without a developer making sure that temporary input field values of a form are stored somewhere (typically session) for such a case as a post action or being reloaded.

Lots of us too! See a few posts starting from this one: https://processwire.com/talk/topic/12208-tracy-debugger/?do=findComment&comment=126847 Let's start a donate to Adrian movement! And AOS fans should ask @tpr to implement a donation button as well!

What? No Opera Mini support?

It can be used out of the box when jQuery is used for AJAX, more: https://processwire.com/talk/topic/15809-sessions-db-http404/?do=findComment&comment=141119 Hidden pages are still accessible via their URL so you can use it if your page template file handling the AJAX request is not used for displaying anything else. Unpublished is not accessible (except for logged in superusers) so you need to publish it. A page can be dedicated solely to be an AJAX call processor if you wish to, just check for the sign of an AJAX call, echo your output and use return $this->halt(); to stop the process. Since such a setup is a normal page request it behaves like one, so that is why "ifs" are needed. Here is Ryan's post about the basics: https://processwire.com/talk/topic/225-how-to-work-with-ajax-driven-content-in-processwire/ If you redirect to 404 if it is not an AJAX call, it should be enough to make sure such a page is practically nonexistent for the outside world.

How does it work in practice? Could you please elaborate?

@modifiedcontent Hi, a few starting points: https://processwire.com/talk/topic/17320-call-to-undefined-function-wire-with-ajax/?do=findComment&comment=152180 https://processwire.com/talk/topic/17217-getting-content-in-user-language-in-templates-outside-of-template-folder/?do=findComment&comment=151215 Hope this helps.

I know, I was the one to ask for that feature However, that switches off all. Never mind, it just an idea.

Because it is such a drastic change it would be useful to have small switch somewhere "attached" to select2 so that temporarily it is possible to switch this modification off/on and that way we can get PW's default behavior, just in case.

This trick works on Mac too but there are fields starting with same letters (I tend to prefix them according to where they belong), some are already added some are not, also there are fields belonging to parents (in the case of a Lister) where select2 would be most useful. What I find most difficult to grasp is that in the case of Templates already added fields appear at the top of the dropdown (grayed out but in dark gray so it's hard to tell them apart) while in ListerPro's columns config the already added fields are at the bottom and this inconsistency is hard to get used to. That is why I'm saying that rethinking this part of the core would be welcome.

Even if it doesn't grow large, actually. So I think it is a great idea as we always know the name and that is why select2 and similar makes a lot of sense. But maybe this change should be introduced to the core and selectize.js is already there.

Yeah, limiting users is fun!

I wish, I wish... No more wishes today, thank you Sir!

@adrian Is there such a feature in Tracy? Maybe you are planning to add it?

FYI: https://make.wordpress.org/core/2018/02/19/proposed-roadmap-tools-for-gdpr-compliance/ I think It is worth keeping an eye on how the WordPress guys are trying to tackle all this.

Why cannot we do it – just once – in way that makes sense, something like: Should it be normal to face the possibility of big fines because the law is always ambiguous? Is it really the way it should be? Just because we got used to it, it does not mean this is what we should put up with forever. So there were two years to do something but most companies have just started to deal with this issue, if at all. We can pretend that it is the fault of business owners but I do not think so.

We can easily come to the conclusion that GDPR is technically possible, but the thing is that is it practically impossible to comply to, currently. Requirements of GPDR should be introduced and forced incrementally – in a reasonably long period of time – so that companies, developers and technology have enough time to evolve to the point when it is "so easy" to apply it in practice that there is no excuse no to do it. Currently quite the opposite is true. They may say that people had plenty of time to take action – since the introduction of GDPR – but this is not how life works, and such an argument is ignorant and cynical. As GDPR raises too many questions right off the bat, it is not fair to expect that businesses should know by now what to do without asking experts. Since there are no "GDPR experts" just yet but it is soon put to force, there are only questions and a lot. Trying to force GDPR and ePrivay on us all at once will hand a huge advantage to America and the rest of the world, also it will have a serious negative impact on the European economy, meaning that we are going to shoot ourselves in the foot. Applying GDPR and ePrivay requires time and money and the rest of the world simply do not care, so they will not follow suit while we are forcing ourselves to pretend we can do the – currently – practically impossible. Business leaders do not understand the technical details at all, so they are forced to rely on IT staff who need to come up with ad-hoc "solutions". The current situation can be considered as business opportunity for the IT world but it will be a lot of fragmented, not yet tested and questionable work which is only needed in the EU. We want to solve what others do not, and all at once. We rely on systems which are mainly developed by US "companies/teams" which are not forced to comply and that is why we are left to implement it all ourselves , each business has to do it on its own from scratch , and that is a far cry from being effective.

https://make.wordpress.org/core/2018/02/16/gdpr-compliance-chat-recap-february-14th/ "Data stored on backups have to be deleted too." Any idea how to do that? There are various backup solutions provided by hosting companies but account owners often cannot even delete the backup(s) just revert to them and/or retrieve files. Also If I create an sql dump as a backup, I can only delete the whole file if I want to get rid of just one person's personal data... We need to delete our precious backups just to make sure one person's data will not get reverted by any chance? Am I the only one to think that this is overkill?

+1