thetuningspoon

Members
  • Content count

    584
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

thetuningspoon last won the day on May 8 2015

thetuningspoon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

426 Excellent

3 Followers

About thetuningspoon

  • Rank
    Hero Member
  • Birthday 11/03/1986

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.solutioninnovators.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    CT, USA
  • Interests
    Design, Programming, Tiny Houses

Recent Profile Visitors

11,629 profile views
  1. I get that, but if everyone is using their own helper libraries and different frameworks, you lose the great jQuery ecosystem and all the plugins and libraries built on top of it. You could end up having to include a bunch of code from different libraries that are doing the same thing in order to use the existing solutions you want. That feels like a step backward to me. I don't see why jQuery can't just be retooled so that it's using newer, faster technology under the hood, with the same compact, standardized api on the front end. Maybe have a legacy jQuery and a new, slimmer jQuery for those that don't need old browser support. Regarding jQuery and more advanced JS applications, I don't think jQuery should be thought of as competing against vue or react. It's at a lower level in the stack. It doesn't impose structure on your application, but that doesn't mean it prevents you from creating your own structure. Disclaimer: These are just my feelings as a developer who is still trying to build my applications largely server-side, where my ajax calls usually return blocks of html encoded within JSON instead of pure data structures. This keeps all rendering and business logic server side in order to keep the application code simple and DRY. Not sure if I really know enough about what I'm talking about when it comes to the new client-side development paradigm. I feel like both are reasonable approaches to development (depending on the application's requirements). It's when you don't choose one or the other that things really get messy and WET.
  2. Sorry to say, whenever I see the vanilla JS alternatives to jQuery, it reminds me why I still use jQuery
  3. @mel47 Thanks. I just pushed another release so the module will only load in the admin, as it was before. But it is still no longer limited to specific admin processes.
  4. Just released an update on GitHub: -Added support for repeaters using the new InputfieldPage::renderReadyHook method (Will fall back to hooking into render if using on an older version of PW) -Specifying processes is no longer required (I'm not sure why I limited the modules use to just specific admin pages before, but there may have been a reason. Let me know if you see any problems with this) I looked into the possibility of making the modal optional, but it's not such a simple task with the way the JS is currently structured. I would like to do some refactoring, but not sure if/when I'll have the time.
  5. @Kiwi Chris Did you try this? https://processwire.com/talk/topic/9857-module-page-field-edit-links/
  6. Hey guys, for some reason the forum has not been notifying me of new replies in this thread, so I apologize for my absence. @Robin S Thanks for the info on the new InputfieldPage::renderReadyHook method. I will update the module asap. I think that as it stands right now, the module does work in a repeater as long as the main page also has a page field that is using the module. The problem is that the js and css assets are not included by the repeater. @Ipa it looks like the javascript for these two modules is conflicting. I am not familiar with HelperFieldLinks. Can you explain its purpose? Also, can you get me a larger screen shot of this in context of the rest of the field? I don't think this would be too difficult to add. Good idea.
  7. Not a question, but just something I discovered that I wanted to share on the forum since I haven't seen it discussed anywhere. If you are familiar with the "autojoin" option on individual ProcessWire fields, enabling this feature means that every time a page with that field on it is loaded into memory, the field will be included with it immediately. (Normally just the page's name and meta data is included, and getting a specific field from the page requires a separate trip to the database. This is to conserve memory) Normally this is fine and it keeps things simple, but occasionally you may be loading a lot of data in a consistent fashion (for, example, to populate a table) and know exactly which fields you need. With the autojoin option on fields, you would have to enable autojoin for all pages at all times, which you probably don't want. With the following code, you can do a $pages->find() and specify exactly which fields you want to autojoin with it: $pages->find("template=whatever", ['loadOptions' => ['joinFields' => ['filed1','field2','field3']]] ); I tested out in debug mode on one of my projects, and it seemed to significantly reduce the number of SQL queries required for an html data table I was building. Hope that helps someone!
  8. Why did I not know about this module until now?
  9. Mystery solved: https://github.com/processwire/processwire-issues/issues/430
  10. The resolution to this: https://github.com/processwire/processwire-issues/issues/430
  11. @ryan Could you provide any insight on this? Thanks
  12. @dragan Yes. Unfortunately, findMany() has the same issue in that the queries are still separate and the initial queries still have to return all of the matching page IDs. Pages sum doesn't fit this use case, I don't think.
  13. We are putting PW through its paces on one of our projects. Currently we have 3.5 million pages and counting. Everything has been scaling well and is running great, except for some of our selectors that use subfields. Our project involves physical units (represented by PW pages) that transmit their status to our application each day, resulting in a new page for each transmission. We are using a page field on the unit to store a reference to its latest transmission. We then need to filter the units by their last transmission date, so we are using the following selector: $pages->find('template=unit, last_transmission.date_field<-1 day, last_transmission.date_field>=-7 day, sort=created, limit=10'); Once we had several thousand unit pages in the system, this selector began to fail. After doing some debugging to see what SQL PW was actually producing, we discovered that the problem was that the selector was generating three separate sql queries. One returned the ids of all of the units that had a last_transmission date greater than a given timestamp, one returned the ids of all the units that had a date less than a given timestamp, and the last took the results of the other two queries and applied any remaining selectors. Since there were several thousand units, the first two queries caused a memory error. We resolved this issue by using the created date instead of a custom date field on the last transmission, so the selector changed to: $pages->find('template=unit, last_transmission.created<-1 day, last_transmission.created>=-7 day, sort=created, limit=10'); For some reason PW was able to combine this into a single SQL query, whereas it was unable to do so with the custom field. Not sure if this is the intended behavior or not, but it looks like this is an area of PW core that might be improved upon. Has anyone else come across this issue and are there any other workarounds I might not be aware of?
  14. @kongondo Correct, I only want Page and not Child 1. Though it doesn't matter if Child 1 is matched too, because it has a different template from Page and I can exclude it by specifying the template in the selector. @tpr I tried your suggestion yesterday after seeing your post. The example I gave in my initial post was oversimplified. My selector is actually more like children.children.pageField=123 So that didn't work. Any ideas? I restructured the page tree to get things working for now (the pages I'm referencing in the selector are now direct children), but this may not be ideal in the long run.
  15. Just ran into a requirement on one of my sites which I don't think PW supports yet. I'm trying to match all pages that have a certain child, but the child is not an immediate child of the page. It is two levels down: Page -- Child 1 ---- Sub-child 1 ---- Sub-child 2 < I only want to select the parent Page if this one exists -- Child 2 This would be similar to the has_parent selector, but in the opposite direction. I searched the forums but didn't find any discussion of this feature/request. I seem to recall seeing it brought up at some point in the past, though.