mattgs

Mh, an investment company gobbling up open source projects. Yeah, that's never a good sign. I think we need an RTE that's governed by the OSI or something.

A cloud-hosted version would indeed be troublesome in terms of GDPR. As almost all of my clients are based in Europe, this is a crucial and sensitive topic to me. It's a bit frustrating how the licensing problem with rich text editors just keeps repeating itself. First CKEditor, now TinyMCE. That said, I need to emphasize that it's not about "wanting things for free". If the solution is a paid module, I'm perfectly fine with that. I just wish there would be a long-term solution to this problem that wouldn't involve Ryan having to negotiate licenses every two years or so.

One step closer, yes. But realistically, that's still not very close at all. Someone always needs to enter those prompts, after all. And while I've heard some people say an AI will always create more secure code than a human being, I don't believe that at all. So any code created by an AI should always be double-checked by a human being. The code examples ChatGPT is giving us right now is only snippets. There's still a lot of manual work needed in creating, say, a new Fieldtype and Inputfield. I've asked ChatGPT to create a Fieldtype and Inputfield and it wasn't able to show me a fully working example that didn't need a lot of manual editing. It always "forgot" some things, like the constructor, or it used a wrong parameter signature. Of course this will get better, but the more complex your prompts are becoming, the higher the risk the code simply will not work out of the box. The way I'm seeing it, AI is a great and valuable TOOL. It can save you from having to Google an answer for 30 minutes. It can give you some inspiration. But it's still just a tool, and for the foreseeable future, our jobs will be safe, because it's going to be US who will write the prompts and incorporate the code created. We shouldn't ignore it, and we need to learn to use it correctly. If all goes well, it might make our jobs a little easier, but shhh, don't tell our clients! Seriously though, yes, it's probably going to change things in the long term. See it as an evolution of our jobs. It might make SOME jobs obsolete. But frankly, comparing the clean elegance of ProcessWire with the convoluted mess of some other web frameworks and content management systems that keep reinventing the wheel every six months, you could argue if some web developers maybe should become obsolete. But finally, there's the issue that's been debated when it comes to art AI and Github Copilot already: copyright. AIs are always trained on existing material, and there will always be the risk that it simply lifts some code/art that has been released under an incompatible license. That's something a human will need to have an eye on, too.

Hi all, I'm having a problem with the Selector API. I've got a page titled "Cai Mep" and using the API to find "cai" doesn't give me any results. If I change the page title to "Caitest Mep", it does find the page when searching for "cai", but not searching for "mep". Changing it to "Caitest Meptest", it finds the page searching for "cai" or "mep". So I suppose every title fragment shorter than 4 letters gets ignored by the API? Runnning on PW 3.0.163. EDIT: To elaborate, I'm not using the API in code, I'm having this issue using the Find module and also with the Page Autocomplete option in a page reference field.

Yes, that works, thank you so much -- I knew there was nothing the Processwire API couldn't do

Found the culprit: Line 113 in InputfieldVisualPageSelector.module: $pageField = $this->wire('fields')->get($this->name); When inside a Repeater field, the field name gets appended by _repeater plus some ID. I brute forced this problem by changing the line to this: $pageField = $this->wire('fields')->get(preg_replace('/_repeater\d+/', '', $this->name)); It works for me, but it's probably not exactly a clean solution. There's probably a better way to get the "clean" field name via the API.

I was wondering if the module was known to work inside of a Repeater field. It seems it doesn't. When used inside a Repeater field, it can't access the field configuration and ends up with default values and the Add button missing. Digging through the source code I've noticed that when used inside a Repeater field, the process doesn't get the correct (or any) $pageFieldID, as can be seen by the iFrame URL missing the pageFieldID.

Hey, I've tried to use VPS in a Repeater field and it's not working correctly at all. Same field is working fine stand-alone. Is that a known problem or did I do something wrong?