szabesz

You are right, the recommended blog profile is missing some features that is implemented in Ryan's profile, but to my knowledge it is the most current blog profile that has been released recently. I myself use it as a base of my future projects too, and currently refactoring it to my needs and also to make it more beginner friendly than it is right now. My version of it still needs a lot of work, and probably will be done by the end of this year. I will also try to document it as much as time permits. You should definitely need to familiarize yourself with the basics of template files, I can recommend reading these: A 4 part series (based on Twig, but worth reading nevertheless): http://blog.mauriziobonani.com/processwire-basic-website-workflow-part-1/ and this one too: https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2016/07/the-aesthetic-of-non-opinionated-content-management-a-beginners-guide-to-processwire/

Cool, thanks for sharing! Could you please also edit the first sentence of the post above the code? Maybe by crossing it out, and explaining the situation right after it. Leaving it like this is misleading when skimming through the posts and not reading every single character.

https://www.tawk.to/timeline/ look for: "JANUARY - Launch of the 100% Free tawk.to Ticketing system that deeply integrates with our existing live chat platform."

I'm interested in it, so if you could just jot it down as a short case study after you have finished the site, that would be cool

Thanks @bernhard, I've never heard of it but what I read on their site is pretty impressive. They even have an integrated ticketing system . One thing is missing though: https://www.tawk.to/knowledgebase/integrations/ No ProcessWire integration (At least not yet...)

I do not know why, but in authors.php it is thrown on purpose: if(!$author->id || !$author->hasRole($authorRole)) throw new Wire404Exception(); Just remove || !$author->hasRole($authorRole) and it should work. At least you get the list, but as I mentioned before, this profile is good for learning tricks and general concepts, but it is sort of outdated and is from the time when ProcessWire 2.2.9 and 2.3.x was in use. The API has grown a lot since then, so sometimes there are easier ways to accomplish the same.

That function is now deprecated. You can create a Textformatter module if you want to, eg.:

Probably it is more of a UI/UX design issue than a technical one. I think the default behavior of the menu item not showing up when the page is not available in a given language is ok, at least that is what I would go with anyway. If you just simply include the not translated page in the menu linking to its English counterpart, the visitor might easily believe that it is an error and/or the page has not been translated by mistake. You might want to find other means to present these pages in question to the visitors. For example if your site menu is not huge, you can put two site tree like menus in a "mega footer", labelled: "Pages in Portuguese:" and "Pages in English", so that visitors interested in the English version can still find it. Sure, pages are still a bit hidden this way, but it is just one idea of solving this, you might want something else that is more sophisticated than this.

At first I was also confused by the similarities in the names of the two modules. I remember spending some time on processwire.com to figure out what is what in this regard.

This page points to a forum post that is no longer valid (probably because of the Forum update?). Current url: Anyway, it is easier to install a beta version of the profile which is also good for checking out how it was made (blog-site2.zip linked from this post): For a more up-to-date blog profile I recommend:

@Jonathan Lahijani Thaks for the intel Jonathan! OT here, but any chance of releasing you video tutorials soon?

I vote for Disabled Panels for Restricted Users

It is a CSS/JSON like syntax, which is quite familiar to us, so it is easy to deal with in this regard. As you pointed out, the drawback is that solution is not flexible when refactoring field names, but if you want to keep it simple then it is something that is just good enough, I think. This way it will be recommended to setup the columns when the development of the site has reached the level when the field names are unlikely to change. Sooner or later we stop renaming the fields anyway

Sounds good, but what does "enter field names to the existing field's label (title)" exactly mean? How would that actually work?

@adrian At the moment I do not have the time to test these new "tracy-restricted-panels" permission features, however, may I point out this "strange sounding" title? Restricted User Disbled Panels (vs e.g. Disbled Restricted-user Panels ?) English is far from being my mother tongue, nevertheless, if I understand it correctly, then we restrict users to a certain set of panels, and this set of panels can be configured via enabling/disabling them. So it is not the panels that are restricted but the users themselves, because they have restricted access. Or am I mistaken? Sorry for being picky on this one, but I just do not comprehend this title as it sounds ambiguous to me and my proposal is not the best either but I just coud not could up with a better one

+1 Oh, and thanks for this brand new User Bar customization feature!

You can also automate it by using a hooks, however, a repeater is clearly not a straightforward solution to this problem, it can be just be used as a workaround when also implementing those additional hooks.

@LostKobrakai and @pwired Thanks for directions. I'm going to have a busy day this Monday, but will definetally take a closer look of the posts you provided. Note, that I've already adopted @clsource's (Camilo Castro's) wire render pattern thanks to his recently released Processwire Ghost Writer profile which I am currently refactoring to my needs. @tpr Well, there are various reasons for not taking the template engine path, at least not yet. You have almost converted me and I was about to jump the Latte bandwagon, but currently I want to work with the least amount of dependencies and a template engine is just another framework to add to he system which is not really needed for standard, basic websites which I'm currently interested in.

Warning: it's going to be TL;DR so proceed with caution In an effort to come up with an optimized development workflow, I have come up with the idea of implementing most of the required template files in the form of static HTML files first (based on a "CSS framework" which will also serve as the CSS base of the site). Basically I want to implement most of the frontend without touching ProcessWire in the first place. The advantage of this approach is that it is a lot faster to work with only HTML/CSS/JS during the frontend design phase of the project, and the end result of the design phase can be "similar" to a wireframe/mockup which can be presented to a client, but this "mockup" actually represents (say) 80% of the final design, so it is something that is rather good to work with when the backend development with ProcessWire begins. This also means that my ProcessWire template files will be mostly implemented with <?php echo ... ?> and alternative syntax control structures that can be "just injected" into the above mentioned static HTML template files to turn them into ProcessWire template files later on. So far so good, but my ProcessWire template files are going to be separated into "template file partials", and I also want to implement the static HTML template files in the same way, so that they are also separated into "template file partials", and ideally organized in the very same structure. E.g. I will include the site's navigation in the ProcessWire template file like this: <?php echo $navigation ?> So I want to do the same in the corresponding static HTML template file, something like this: <div data-template="partials_navigation"></div> If it can be done recursively, then I can implement the same in both cases. With ProcessWire, I use wireRenderFile() to render partials recursively, so I just had to figure out what to use in the case of the static HTML template files. What else to use if not JavaScript? I started off by googling around, looking for some pre-made solutions... I did not find too much that could help me, the only thing useful I could dig up is "HTML Imports", for example: http://blog.teamtreehouse.com/introduction-html-imports Note, that currently this technique only works in Chrome(-ium), but that is my choice in frontend development anyway. I've read somewhere that other browsers might never implement "HTML Imports", but that is to be seen... I have found a lot of articles explaining the basics of "HTML Imports", but I could not find any libraries or frameworks nor even something similar to what I need, so I implemented a proof of concept version of mine: I'm quite happy with the result so far. The JavaScript code needs some additional error handling, but otherwise it seems to do what I need. Here it is in action (Chrome(-ium) only!!!): [...no longer live...] And here is the source code for those who want to take a closer look: [...old stuff, I removed it to save space...] However, I'm pretty sure that someone must have already come up with this idea, so I'm asking the ProcessWire community if anyone can point me to similar solutions, something that I can study and/or use. So any piece of advice that might help me to take it to the next level, or any objections to this "HTML Imports" technique, any disadvantages? Thank you in advance

@Robin S Of course, a dedicated solution to this problem would be welcome, however, limiting the number of repeater items has its own advantages too. A "limited repeater" can be a tool for more general issues, such as maximum number of slides in a slider, maximum number of widgets in a sidebar, etc... and in the meantime (i.e.: while we are waiting for the above described "grouped fields" ) implementing a limit for the number of repeater items seems to be a lot less work too. It is a valid hack to impose a limit of one item per repeater, and we can probably extend it so that it checks the number of repeater items and removes the button when the limit is reached, but this is still more of a hack than a straightforward solution. So I'm still for a core support for "limited repeaters"

@ryan and @Jonathan Lahijani First of all, thanks for the blog post, I really enjoyed it and learnt a few more things to guide my future ProcessWire based development efforts. Second, a couple of suggestions: An extra "these" should probably be removed: "...making these these dependencies work nicely..." And more importantly: the WORDPRESS VS. PROCESSWIRE chart could be updated with links to the modules in question as well. During our forum support sessions, it will be a very useful chart to point to when dealing with beginners coming with some WordPress background. By including the missing links to the modules the chart can be made more useful in this regard.

At the and of the video, you can see how to setup the database. This is what I found, but you might be able to find better tutorials. I've never used LAMP, but phpMyadmin comes with it, so you can just look for phpMyadmin tutorials.

This issue is not really about ProcessWire, but LAMP+MySQL if I understand it correctly. You can google around, or look it up on youtube, eg:

+1 @bernhard Who is this clever developer you are referring to?

During the installation process ProcessWire needs write access, however, after you have installed PW, it is time to be more strict, and remove as much permission as you can on the server in question. http://processwire.com/docs/security/file-permissions/#securing-writable-directories-and-files "If the installer populates 777 and 666 permissions, this translates to directories and files that are readable and writable to everyone, which is not a good scenario in shared environments. But without knowing more about the hosting environment, they may be the only permissions that we know for certain will enable ProcessWire to run. In either case, please read on for more details. In most cases you can further lock down these permissions with a little more information."