Kiwi Chris

I love the concept of config migrations with each field and template having its own file, as it's much more in line with what I'm used to with ASP.Net Core and Visual Studio where you can build some things visually, but still end up with code, and it's also tidier with version control, as fields or templates that don't change are kept separate. Another benefit I see of using config migrations, is that due to module dependencies, unlike site profiles that are all or nothing, it's possible to define a basic set of fields for a site in a module, even if the module doesn't do much other than install fields and templates, and then you have a working site with some base functionality. If you want additional functionality on some sites but not others, but require certain fields or templates to exist before you add the additional functionality, the module dependency can take care of this. eg, I might start off wanting just a basic site, then want to add a blog, but a blog template will use some of the same fields as the basic site, but I don't want to have to redefine them, just be sure they already exist before I install the blog upgrade. The issue I've struck is an existing project that I've defined fields and templates with using the ProcessWire UI, but now I want to bundle some of them up into a module. The scenario is I've started building what I think is a one-off site, then I realise that different components have the potential to be reused on multiple sites, but exporting a site profile is too inflexible. Here's a screenshot of templates after copying and pasting template data from existing templates into config migrations for two new modules and installing them. As you can see there are duplicate templates, the originals with no prefix, and new ones prefixed with the module name. I want to avoid this, but still like using the ProcessWire UI to design fields and templates, because I'm forgetful and can't remember all the properties and what they do, and I find the UI reminds me, but once I've created or updated a field or template, I want to add it to a migration file so that it's easy to update across multiple sites. Would renaming the templates (same thing applies to fields) to the naming convention of config migrations avoid this doubling up? Also, if I edit one of these apparent duplicate fields, I get this: If I edit the actual "animal" template I get all the usual field editing options, with the normal warning that RockMigrations is installed, although in my config file I've got: $config->noMigrate = true; to prevent rockMigrations overriding changes I make via the ProcessWire UI on my development site, although installing the modules still appears to have triggered the config migrations. Ideally I'd like to avoid what looks like two definitions of the same thing, and still have the UI based editing available. What's the best way to achieve this?

Thanks. This was the problem.

What I can see using Chrome Devtools, is immediately after the subpage is loaded, there's a jquery call to the execute method. What I think is happening is ProcessPageLister is trying to call it's own execute method to load the list, but instead is loading the execute method of the page it's on, resulting in loading the content from the execute() parent page underneath the lister headers. I've set the code to the same as the example that apparently works but it's still resulting in the same issue.

That's weird. I simplified it down to the bare minimum as per the example, and still not working. I wonder if it's some strange third party module interaction? I don't a lot of modules beyond the core loaded, just these: I've tried disabling all autoload modules (other than core) via Tracy debugger, and the problem persists.

As per my own use and the linked forum topic, it's possible to render a lister in an execute() method of a Process module without any problem. However, once I try to render it in a sub page of the Process module, eg executePage1() it doesn't render correctly, with only the header of the lister rendering, and then the content of the execute() (not executePage1()) method rendering underneath it. I think there might be some conflict between url segments used by Process modules to identify subpages and lister. It seems like calling the execute() method of the lister is partially working, but then calling the execute() method of the module it's called from after it's rendered its header. I'm using the latest build of ProcessWire. Is it possible to have a lister render in a subpage of a Process module? If not, are there any alternatives to display a lister predefined in module code?

Really pleased the documentation is included with the main documentation. It would be great to have the documentation for all the pro modules that allow API access included in the same way. ListerPro sort of is, as it extends lister. Although all Pro modules are mentioned on the site, they're not necessarily in the API reference even if they can be accessed via the API. Also there's not a single page that lists all built in fieldtypes and pro fields that can offer additional functionality. I'd really like there to be a page like this: https://docs.umbraco.com/umbraco-cms/fundamentals/data/data-types/default-data-types (In addition to PHP, I also work with .Net and Umbraco is the closest thing to ProcessWire I've found in that space.) Thinking as a developer, one of the first things I want to know when I'm evaluating a platform is 'What can it do out of the box?'. If I've got to jump around amongst multiple webpages to find out then I immediately start losing interest. I'm happy to contribute to ProcessWire by helping with documentation if that would be useful.

The issue I have is pages that are not publicly viewable, but are viewable only to people with a specific role. AdminRestrictBranch works fine with regard to restricting editing access, but as you mention, it doesn't work for frontend access. Because the criteria I want to use to restrict view access are the same as what I want to restrict edit access, I figured extending the module functionality with my own custom code for view access would be a practical way to meet my needs, but I haven't figured out how to apply the code so that it doesn't block view access to admin pages as well. It's probably a selector thing. I'm not even sure if this is the right thread to ask, but seeing as the functionality I want extends what the module already does, I thought it would be a good place to start, case anyone else needed to do similar.

I'm not sure whether this comes under the scope of this module or not, but I want to be able to not just restrict viewing/editing of branches of the page tree, but actual page views as well. I discovered that if you use the search box: Even if a page is within a branch that is restricted from a user in the page tree, they can still view it. I tried adding another hook: $this->wire()->addHookAfter('Page::viewable', $this, 'hookPageViewable'); and this: protected function hookPageViewable($event) { // in case there is already a defined exclusion for this user's role for this page if (!$event->return) return; if ($this->wire('user')->hasPermission('page-view')) { $event->return = $this->onAllowedBranches($event->object); } else { $event->return = false; } } But the end result is that admin menus that the user could previously view are hidden, so it's now working TOO well. What I want is for pages that aren't viewable or editable from the page tree aren't viewable from search either.

ProcessWire can never be WordPress with its famous fast install, precisely because of ProcessWire's flexibility. The appeal has to be to developers, or designers who know a little code, but don't want to have to get stuck into learning a lot of code. I think with more site profiles, using popular CSS frameworks to enable easy customisation, ProcessWire could maybe grab some of those WordPress users, as the installation process is quick and easy, it's just the customisation that takes time, and if there's a profile that meets your needs, it's as quick to get a site up as WordPress. It's when you need anything else WordPress is horrible. Maybe there needs to be an option for paid site profiles? One of the issues with profiles is that they're applicable at install time only, but via something like RockMigrations it would be possible to have a profile like a blog profile, but then multiple migration files that can theme the same data differently. I wonder whether rather than calling things site profiles, calling them ProcessWire apps might better convey what they are - or not? I think the key message I'd be wanting conveyed to other developers and potential clients is 'build anything - fast'. Much as I dislike Wordpress, it's claim to fame, 'build a blog - fast' it actually can deliver on pretty well. It's when you try to build anything else with it that it starts getting horrible. Incidentally, I just took a look at wordpress.org, and if I didn't know any better, visually comparing that to ProcessWire, I'd choose WordPress. It starts off quickly summarising what it does, then with a bit of scrolling gives a bunch of screenshots of the diversity of things people have build with it. The only call to action on the ProccessWire site is 'download', and mostly impersonal, whereas wordpress.org is full of personal calls to action: 'Get', 'Meet', 'Discover', 'Explore' ... The site uses some similar large fonts and a lot of visuals, but the above the fold content gets to the point quickly. The big stuff comes after scrolling. Since I'm being critical, I'm happy to write something and send it through for evaluation, as I have benefited from the ProcessWire community. I'm not a designer, or probably even really a marketer, but I I do have a bit of interest in language, and I think the text could be significantly improved to be more compelling. Here are a couple of examples of how I'd rewrite things: Save time and work your way with ProcessWire, a free content management system (CMS) and framework (CMF). Enjoy all custom fields, a secure foundation, proven scalability and performance. Take control over the design You can define and edit all fields in ProcessWire easily in the admin. You can create as many of them as you want, and of any type. You can even bundle them in repeatable groups called Repeater fields. You control all of the markup, not ProcessWire. If I want to sell end users on ProcessWire I want to show them it can be as pretty as WordPress and more capable. Luckily here in NZ I can just refer them to the portfolio site of @Robin S as he's done a number of high profile sites that are well known nationwide, and I can say 'built using the same system', and also reassure them that I'm not the only ProcessWire developer out there. (It helps that I'm a regular visitor to several of the sites he's built too.)

Is there any way to adjust the font size to personal preferences? I'm finding headings way too big on my screen resulting in unnecessary scrolling to read anything. The animated heading at the top bring back not particularly fond memories of the <blink></blink> tag. I suspect it may be mobile first, but if I'm accessing the site it's for documentation, and I'm not going to do that on a phone. One of the things I've loved about ProcessWire is it's fairly well documented, but if I have to do extra scrolling every time I want to reference docs because everything is so much bigger, that's not helpful. I realise other people may like the new design, and I don't want to impose my preferences on others, but honestly I can't say I'm comfortable with the new presentation. Sorry, I know lots of work has gone into this. It's why I'm asking, following the ProcessWire philosophy of allowing total flexibility, whether actual site visitors themselves can have some option to select default font sizing, so those who like it big can keep it that way, but those who'd like it smaller can have something more to their liking.

With regard to the documentation, it would be quite good to have newer features that have been mentioned in this weekly update or blog posts incorporated in the main documentation. Possibly also some of the pro modules stuff, as at the moment documentation is scattered around either in the forum or on the shop pages to purchase the pro modules. While it makes sense for discussion to be in the forum for people with up to date subscriptions, having documentation in one place might be a help, and might even convince people to buy pro modules if documentation for how they can use them is available. I notice with Lister Pro, there is some documentation in the API reference under Lister with core lister methods and properties and Lister Pro methods listed together but pro methods and properties identified.

Further to what @wbmnfktr said, I think ProcessWire can be described as a low code data designer. You still need a front end developer to build public facing pages, but potentially someone with no backend development skills can build a complex range of templates for different data. In more complex scenarios, yes, it might be necessary to write some modules or hooks, but a huge amount can be done without writing a single line of code, but later, if people want to package up and subject to source control, there are third party modules like RockMigrations that allow taking all the field and template definitions and storing them as migrations files. In a sense, ProcessWire in this respect is like a headless CMS of which there are a few out there that allow custom data design without coding. But wait there's more. ProcessWire can be used as a no code/low code headless CMS, but it also assumes that you'll want to output the data somehow, and give you all the tools to do it, without being opinionated. If you just want to output fields directly into HTML template files with some simple PHP codes, fine, you can do it. If you want to output as API calls and use a javascript frontend framework, you can do it. (Not a core feature, but there is a third party module to enable it) If you want to use a templating language, you can do it. (also via third party modules, or use your own)

Sounds like a new module coming. RockEstimator. 😁

What options are there to autosave individual page fields both in normal pages and repeaters? I see there's a page Auto Save in pro dev tools, but I'm not sure if this is what I need? There's also a commercial module by Kongondo - dynamic selects, but that requires creating a new field of type dynamic select, rather than existing fields, and I'm not sure whether it allows autocomplete rather than dropdowns, so it's not ideal. Mainly my use case is to handle dependent page fields, where one page field depends on the value of another one. I'm aware of the ability to create selectors that refer to other fields on a page, but this doesn't work as required in all scenarios. I know the API allows saving individual fields and can do so silently if necessary. Having the ability to specify individual page fields that should autosave via ajax when they're updated would be extremely helpful. Where this would be particularly useful would be with page Autocomplete input fields, as I've worked out how to hook input to pass the calling page to the hook, for custom selectors, but this only works with current values already saved to the page, so being able to combine this with the ability to autosave specified page fields would help with complex dependencies. For some fields this functionality might be unnecessary or undesirable, so being able to configure it on a per field with per template override as with other field properties would be ideal. Has anyone implemented anything like this, or does the pro page Autosave module do this?

As someone who writes about as much C# as PHP, ? to indicate nullable parameters is familiar, although if they'd put the ? after the parameter type, it would have meant not having to remember a different position depending on language. At least we don't have to put another upside down question mark at the end of the parameter, for probably the majority of us who don't have Spanish keyboards. 🙂