Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


LostKobrakai last won the day on August 4 2020

LostKobrakai had the most liked content!


About LostKobrakai

  • Birthday 11/29/1991

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Munich, Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

20,835 profile views

LostKobrakai's Achievements

Hero Member

Hero Member (6/6)




Community Answers

  1. I‘m using https://www.inwx.de/ and am quite happy with them.
  2. Seems to be a misconfiguration on the webserver given it's trying to open /home/motatria/public_html/wire and in turn /home/motatria/public_html/wire/index.php as directory indexes are disabled. ProcessWire's entry point index.php is one folder up.
  3. Alternatively someone could build/generate a docset from the php sources for usage in dash or zeal. No stars required. https://zealdocs.org/ / https://kapeli.com/dash https://kapeli.com/docsets
  4. This should not really be a problem for timestamps like created_at though given they're not in the future. You'd still need to know the UTC datetime and the users timezone, but the offset should not change. A problem is storing a datetime today pointing to a day e.g. 10 years in the future. Within those 10 years the definition of timezones might change and what you though would be the offset in 10 years might not turn out to be the offset anymore.
  5. You can look at the utils here: https://github.com/chartjs/Chart.js/blob/master/docs/scripts/utils.js. Seems like there not really complex, but likely make documentation examples more terse.
  6. Generally I advice to keep formatting/parsing at the edges of any system. Input type number is basically the outermost edge by having the client deal with the normalization, as the client has the most knowledge about the user (locale, system settings, …). The visible input is formatted to the users settings, while the number submitted is normalized cleanly for computers to deal with. The next outer most layer in processwire would be the Inputfieldfield module. InputfieldText does handle text and doesn't claim to do anything else, while setting it to type number as you asserted might lack features. So the solution would be to create another Inputfield, which is aware of different means of parsing/formatting numbers – maybe even being aware of locales to not just guess the former. This could still render a text input, but handle all the details of locale aware number formatting and parsing.
  7. I've tried out mollie a few weeks back and they have their internal timeouts. Unless they're to long for your usecase I'd consider mirroring those of your payment provider.
  8. This is a classical distributed systems problem: Your options are idempotency, reserving limited resources early and implementing compensation actions (e.g. compensating for missed payments by freeing the resource again). At some point it might even be useful to involve humans instead of trying to cater for each error case in code. The other part as @Jan Romero pointed out: Give whatever you sell identities. Instead of decrementing number of event tickets available create 100 tickets upfront and link them to orders. A ticket not linked is a ticket available. This is a more natural and easy to understand way of dealing with the domain. In the real world you also first print X tickets before they can be sold in retail. Same should apply to your spaces. Take that from someone having build a system similar to like you intended in a not so critical space (a handful of tickets more are not critical) and while not having completely regretted it I could soon see the problems of it.
  9. You might also want to look at the session fingerprinting.
  10. mod_security is known do cause all manner of problems with various systems. One can get them under control, but from my experience most people just disable it.
  11. There has been support for paginated fieldtypes in processwire for quite a while, but afaik to this day the pro module FieldtypeTable is the only one using it. It's possible to build e.g. a page based paginated fieldtype, but nobody did that yet.
  12. I moved to plausible analytics starting this year. Even a cookie-less option for google analytics might not solve the issue given google will likely continue to use the tracked data for own purposes, which affects the classification by the gdpr beyond just the tech. boundries of cookies.
  13. The HTML5 number input should handle that already. For formatting for output I'd suggest looking at NumberFormatter of php / the intl extension. Having worked with a cldr based library elsewhere extensively I can suggest everyone dealing with locales to use a library for all those differences instead of building one-of solutions.
  14. Since google bought .dev it's supposed to run with HSTS autoenabled. It's no longer a great option for local development and HSTS can be a pain for hosted development pages.
  15. Your points about this are all completely fair. It's up to you to integrate or reject the changes a PR does. Currently the latter however does not happen in a manner visible to the creator of the PR or anyone else looking at the PR. So they just stack up looking like they were never looked at. If you consider something not possible to be added (or even not possible in the near future) everyone is better off if the PR would be closed with a short note of the reasoning. PRs do not age well and it's better to close them than letting them sit until no longer mergeable. The closed PRs (and issues) are still searchable, so if people to their due diligence they'll see that things were rejected before, find related discussion if attached, …. If you're not happy with the code for a given change you can also help people come to a version you're happy with maintaining without needing to go code it yourself. This does even work for issues. One of the most encouraging responses to issues I know from other OSS projects is "Sounds good. PR welcome.". I rarely see that as a response to bigger feature requests, but on smaller incremental things making parts of the project better it's a good way to move the burden of actually fixing something off of the maintainer themself. If a PR is not of that kind it's totally fair to close it with something like "This is to big a change and needs upfront discussion before consideration.". You don't need to take the time of reviewing PRs in depth, when you already know you'll not merge from just the title/description/amount of changes/…. So in conclusion: Without a response from your side a open PR is dead weight in the context of the community helping you improve processwire. Someone did some work and now it's stuck. Even if the response is negative it'll give anyone involved context either to adjust and be fine with things not being added or next steps to get things integrated either by starting a needed discussion, changing the code or implementation or whatever else needs to be done before it could be merged. Given the fact PRs don't age well I also feel response should be reasonably timely – even if the merge actually happens at a later time. Take a year and the PR creator might have moved on or worked around it, the underlying code changed in the meantime so the PR is no longer easily mergeable, but the issue fixed by the PR might still be present. I know this well given I have two open PRs for processwire from 2017 – one small fix, one not as small feature. I hardly use processwire anymore by now.
  • Create New...