ceberlin

I lost 85% of our clients to WordPress due to page builders like Elementor. They aren't concerned with code clutter, page speed and SEO disadvantages. I would love some offerings in that direction, I am aware that this maybe will open Pandora's box. Some praise here for ProcessWire: ProcessWire is unbeatable for websites that almost work as applications. We coded the whole backend office management for our web design firm with ProcessWire including tons of SEO-, Data protection-monitoring- and wp-plugin-updates-montitoring crawlers and checkers: We kind of remote control WordPress from ProcessWire. Clients can log in and see everything they booked at a glance, and can order things directly from ProcessWire, and it is directly connected to the invoicing app. This is a unique system, 10 years of work in it and now makes the entire company manageable by a minimal team, unthinkable without ProcessWire. Thinks I would like in PW4 are things I am used to from WordPress, a full switch to utf8mb4, those needed GDPR utilities out of the box, modules can be "deactivated" leaving the settings intact, and "removed" to make troubleshooting modules compatibility issues much easier. Some image optimization capabilities would be great, the existing 3rd party modules do not meet our expectations yet. Also a good monitoring/curation of outdated/abandoned modules, with supplied warnings, would be great; there are a lot of those old modules, unfortunately.

This is really useful. Some ideas which would make it easier to understand for my editors: Would it be possible to output a rounded value? There is no extra benefit from the super accurate floating value, and they are harder to read, especially if the decimal divider is not country styled typical, but US. I would like to be able to set a threshold value in the module and store texts for it, such as "too short", "too long".

Here I have it like this: If a field is mandatory, also the intitial value field is also mandatory (not always intended by me). If a field is not mandatory, the initial value field is also not mandatory.

Hi, this can be very useful, thank you. Why is an initial value mandatory and not optional?

There is a warning with your composer version when running PHP 8.1: PHP Warning: Uninitialized string offset 0 in .../SymmetricEncryptedText/vendor/composer/ClassLoader.php:375

shows still as "version": "1.5.61" after the update?

@zoeck yes that is possible. ProcessWire was fiddling with the modules recently. - I drop a note in PW "issues".

@horst is this still supported?

@horst - The latest ProcessWire DEV 3.0.220 seams to break the WireMailSmtp module (namespace fatal errors) after a module recompiling. Class "ProcessWire\WireMailSmtp" not found I cannot reach the settings any more and probably it does also not send out mails. Isn't it a good idea to drop compatibility to ancient ProcessWire 2 versions and add the ProcessWire namespace in your code, so it does not compile?

Really? Isn't this field basically a nicely decorated number field, storing only 1 value? It outputs as "5" in my frontend. (Maybe I got the concept wrong?) That has a value of its own, and I start using it in forms. What I'm looking for now, is a mix of these stars and the Pro module "Likes" from @ryan. So a user can not only "like" but also rate with one click. And I have the total number of voters with the average rating, which can then be submitted for SEO as rich content. "Likes" also has a simple fraud protection. Too bad, "Likes" seems not to be in development any more. User interaction becomes more and more important with SEO. (Or like the "Comments"-Field but only with the rating - textual comments can be a pain - but "Likes" is so cool because it's just 1 click and not a form.)

Sorry I was not precise: It can display stars, but I could not figure out to extend this to a user rating system where users do the rating and average stars are displayed. Probably not.

There is actually no working frontend user rating module existing currently, correct? This field works great for other purposes, but is not suitable as a frontend star rating module, is it?

To ask differently - is someone caring it remains up-to-date with PHP and PW? (This is one of my favourite modules I use)

utf8_encode and utf8_decode functions are deprecated in PHP 8.2 Hi, I am curious if this module still actively maintained?

Update: in my case the issue was not language related. This code snippet helped to identifying a broken display condition for a field in the template: So it's worth looking in all directions. I wonder why PW does not show such issues more precisely by default.

@louisstephens Do you remember what you did in the database? I have the same problem after removing languages and cannot find possible issues in the database.

We try to switch from MATOMO direct embedding to the MATOMO tag manager. I am wondering right now how to use the Matomo Tag Manager correctly. Has anyone expericence with this already? We intend not to block the Tag Manager itself but want to be able tags (like Facebook) inside of it. I don't believe right now that the Tag Manager is a GDPR / DSGVO problem itself. And if this one is blocked, every tag inside is blocked too, which makes a fine-grained selection not possible to the user. But I need to be able to set up rules in PrivacyWire that toggles activation of used tags inside of the Tag Manager. But how?

I run into a problem when removing a cropppable element from the image setting: hauptbild,900,600 quadrat,900,900 Expected: The info for the "quadrat" cuts are removed. No change for anything related to "hauptbild" What happens (latest PW dev and module 4 version, using WebP): All crop settings are lost, including "hauptbild". And the default value is not a largest possible crop from the middle (so a 1800x1200 source would produce a proportional small version without crops). Instead a 900x600 upper-left crop from the original image gets cropped. Basically, this means all fine-tuned settings are lost, and the default worsens it.

I stumbled upon another issue: a.f.a.i.k. the IMPRINT and PRIVACY pages should not be covered by this modal. Otherwise, you cannot read what you are going to decide (if you followed the privacy link in the module, for example). But I am not a lawyer, it is just how I think it should work logically, especially thinking of the very strict German laws about the IMPRINT page accessibility. - Any oppinion? I am looking for an easy way. Right now, I am using CSS to hide .privacywire and its wrapper on those. But since the links to those pages are stored in the modules settings, why not excluding them automatically? Just an idea. In this context, it would be cool if the module did some quick checks to assist the webmaster if those linked pages actually exist and are viewable.

That's a little bit like Christmas for me. So useful! An additional reminder under the PW hints for the field might guarantee that this handy option is remembered when the module is active? • validate: Validates that Pages in value matches your selector on page save. • selectOnce=1: Each option can only be selected once per table

great idea. I could really use it. In my case I have an Autocomplete instead of a Select for the page reference (too many targets) and unfortunately, there double entries are still selectable. But intercepting here, might be another level of complexity. But I might soon find a use case where this fits in well. Thanks for the module!

Thanks again for providing this module and keeping it up-to-date. This module is so useful for me.

Today I also got the class "RuntimeMarkupUtilities" does not exist error. (At a very harmless unexpected spot, when trying to edit a simple body textarea in a template: some local field settings). I love the RuntimeMarkup Field, never had the problem with it before and did not want to give up easily. The only difference with my other PW installs: this PW install was brand new straight from the PW github beta repo and filled with a couple of modules, including this one. When started setting up my templates, I had activated the RuntimeMarkup Module for latter use already. But had not set up a RuntimeMarkup field yet. Now the interesting part: As soon as I had my first RuntimeMarkup field set up (just with the default settings) the "RuntimeMarkupUtilities missing" error mentioned above was gone. Maybe the observation gives you some indication about the possible nature of the bug. Maybe there is nothing wrong with the RuntimeMarkup module code, there might be just a timing problem, or the module is looking for a class of some target code not running because not in use at that point. Just guessing.

Hi, ProcessWire 3.0.175 + PrivacyWire 104. On this occasion I wish to thank you for the really helpful module contribution and all your support!

Silly me. I was using the example from here (https://processwire.com/modules/privacy-wire/) without looking for type errors in there. (The example code could be updated?) I fixed it and cleared the cache. Still not working. A minification issue maybe (semicolons)?