Jump to content

Guy Incognito

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Guy Incognito

  1. Yes 100%. I built and run a client-specific CRM/membership system for an arts organisation using Processwire. It started out relatively simple and has grown, but allowed us to build exactly what was needed and cut-out the over-complication of the many off the shelf systems they had already tried. Without PW's baked-in features development of this system would have taken an immeasurable amount of time longer.
  2. Hi @DV-JF - I'm pretty sure I do have both these enabled but I will check thanks. I have found that IP restriction works fine for my requirements though after all - turns out that my server was reporting an IPv6 IP and not the IPv4 I had set in the restrictions. πŸ™ˆ So back up and running for now 😊
  3. I looked into this further. I tweaked the module to dump out the response from Google API and it confirms that indeed referrer restricted API keys won't work with the Geocode API. Array ( [error_message] => API keys with referer restrictions cannot be used with this API. [results] => Array ( ) [status] => REQUEST_DENIED )
  4. I'm just using this module for the first time in a while and finding similar behaviour (Google Cloud has change a lot since I last used this module). I haven't tested the scenarios as thoroughly as @TheMick however I can confirm that everything works without the API key restriction, however restricting it by IP or Http referrer in GC dashboard generates a 'Error geocoding address' response and the lat/long fields don't populate.
  5. @Robin S Thanks for this - really useful and puts my fears to rest. @gornycreative Thanks also for sharing info. I can't see I'll need anything like 50 of templates (famous last words 🀣) and TBH what I'm building is should have pretty low demands in terms of resources anyway - for the end user its more of a set-and-forget scenario. So demands should only increase with a significant number of users... but hey that's a good problem to have eh!
  6. Thanks for the detailed response. This basically summarises exactly the choice in front of me... I'm pretty sure I can dramatically reduce the amount of code by using a new template for every view or configurable feature of my app and feeding it into my _main.php. But I'm not sure if creating loads of templates (I would estimate this will end up being around 10 to create the product MVP) is bad idea or particularly inefficient approach in terms of performance and database?
  7. Hi all, Just embarking on a new web app project that I'm planning to use Markup Regions for. I've experimented with Markup regions before and am happy with the syntax and coding but wondering on the overall approach. The project will have a simple user dashboard with various typical web app views for account management, settings etc etc... I'm wondering am I better having one 'dashboard.php' template with PHP routing/conditions/includes to determine the content each page feeds into the _main.php file. Or is it better to have a seperate template for every page in my dashboard? I could end up with quite a lot of templates to realise my final functionality this way and pretty sure I've seen posts that PW is intended to have a vast number of templates. However routing all the views with new code could also get quite complex quite quickly too. Wondering what thoughts/experiences others have had - I hope this questions makes some sense!
  8. Hi @Macrura thanks for this - module looks fantastic and not sure how I managed to pass it by until now! One quick question - can you export settings to other sites? One big advantage of coding modules is obviously the portability.
  9. After reading up further I see I should have built my own UI on a Process page rather than using a module config screen to achieve this. πŸ™ˆ I never realised there was such a disconnect between using module config screens and the UI of Process modules. It would be awesome if there was a way to optionally pull module config screen into the Process page view as most of the simple modules I need to make for sites don't need more than what the config screen provides other than granting permissions to non super users. Don't know if anyone has come up against this or created a work-around?
  10. Hi all, Title says it all really. Have created a little site-specific module and want to give a non-superuser access to edit the module settings. What's the best way to go about this. I've added a nav item to the the setup menu using the getModuleInfo() array in the module file but this just returns a 'The process returned no content.' message. Should I be redirecting this the config screen or rendering the config screen into this page somehow? Thanks, J Incidentally the icon I choose for the module isn't rendering - do I just choose the name from FontAwesome for this?
  11. Sorry to necro an old post, but I was searching for a pointer on a PW .htaccess config ( @horst's post above super useful btw thanks). @teppo your reply got me thinking - wouldn't it therefore be useful/better if PW were to auto redirect any invalid host requests back to the first domain in the httpHosts array rather than successfully loading the page for the reasons you've outlined - or maybe it should throw an error? I get that it picks it up in debug mode or when you're logged into dashboard, but maybe not ever showing someone a page using an unlisted host on the frontend would be safer?
  12. Hijacking my own thread here lol... but now I think about it more it would be cool to allow images in the comments but looks likes this might be more complex. Might need to switch to an API/repeater based solution and use a CKeditor text field... unless anyone else has a solution/ideas around the comments field?
  13. Sweet, thanks, works perfectly! I knew there had to be a non-destructive preset in there. You just saved me having to pour through the module classes πŸ˜ƒ
  14. I've just realised the default form already renders with the current logged in user name and email... so I guess my revised question is can we disable these fields rather than just hide them?
  15. I'm thinking of using the comments fieldtype for a very basic support ticket system for a project. I guess I can just hide the fields and populate them using JS or something - I'm just wondering if it's possible out the box to disable the name/email fields and use the current logged in users as the comment poster instead without hacking at it. πŸ˜ƒ
  16. You know what - I can't even remember now if/how I resolved this! πŸ™ˆ. But the answers from @d'HinnisdaΓ«l and @adrian are cool for future reference as I had never even noticed you could use regex in the allowed URL segments so that's great to know.
  17. Hi all, is it possible to setup an inline frontend edit on a FieldsetPage field? It works with <edit> tags, but can't make it work inline. Have tried the following to no avail. (Header is the FieldsetPage). TIA. <?=$page->edit('header.simple_text3');?> <?=$page->header->edit('simple_text3');?>
  18. I think I can also implement pseudo enforcement by not dishing out roles to users until they opt into the suggest 2FA. πŸ˜ƒ
  19. No probs thanks for your help. This is the first time using PW 2FA on a client project and just making sure I get my facts straight before looking like a fool 🀣
  20. Ok I was only on latest master. Have updated and now have the options screen in that blog post. But unless I'm thick I still can't figure out how to force TOTP? I see you can 'strongly suggest'. I see Ryan wrote Has it just not happened yet?
  21. What's the best process for adding another user with TfaTotp 2FA? Just using it for the first time. Should I supply them with them with the secret when I first create their account? Seems like a security risk? Otherwise how do I create a 2FA user and let them login for the first time?
  22. I think you can still store HTML in Editor.js. So I wonder if it might be feasible to add a new editor field alongside CKeditor ones then use a hook to copy the content over on page save... or something like that anyway!... I'll be looking to address the same issue if this module works out.
  23. Ok this is awesome then - best of both worlds! One other feature request that will make this a killer module IMO... that it should work with Front End editing.
  24. This looks cool. One bit of feedback (and this may just be my opinion rather than a general consensus) but I really dislike how the WP Gutenberg treats every paragraph as a block. To me it makes no sense to be able to rearrange text at the paragraph level. To me a single block of text with multiple paragraphs within it seems more sensible. Although looking at the example JSON doc on the Editor JS homepage it looks like it treats every para as an element and for ease of maintenance I guess you won't won't want to stray too far the default behaviour.
  25. Amazing thank you! Works like a charm. πŸ˜ƒ
  • Create New...