adrian

Just a guess based on a quick look through the repeater source code, but maybe try hooking: FieldtypeRepeater::savePageField https://github.com/ryancramerdesign/ProcessWire/blob/master/wire/modules/Fieldtype/FieldtypeRepeater/FieldtypeRepeater.module#L958 Also possibly: InputfieldRepeater::processInput (although this is before the repeater has saved, so not sure if it will be of any help) https://github.com/ryancramerdesign/ProcessWire/blob/master/wire/modules/Fieldtype/FieldtypeRepeater/InputfieldRepeater.module#L236

Don't put anything in the wire directory - put it in site/modules/AdminTheme/ I don't recall if it has to be prefixed with AdminTheme to work, but do you have any reason for not following the convention already used for AdminThemeDefault and AdminThemeReno ?

Nope, there is no workaround for this and I don't really think there should be - call one "image" and one "images" (or similar) and it will be a lot simpler for you to remember which one belongs where and will also make more sense in your template API code.

This is one way: http://modules.processwire.com/modules/admin-restrict-page-tree/ Sometimes when I have complicated forms and I don't want to rebuild on the front end, I use Adminbar: https://github.com/teppokoivula/AdminBar Be sure to use that fork by teppo. Apiesa is not maintaining the original anymore and there are problems on recent versions of PW but I think teppo' should work well. I have my own fork that fixes the recent problems which I can also share if needed. I actually change the css to style it to match the website and it actually looks and works really nicely depending on your needs. Obviously not appropriate for a simple form but it can be great when there are user editable sections of a site but you want to keep your users out of the admin.

Or if you want via the admin rather than the API per GuruMeditation's suggestion, you could try Nico's module: http://modules.processwire.com/modules/process-page-delete/ In some ways it is obsolete now that the core has a built in trash action button, but it does offer delete/trash options. Keep in mind though that this will only work with the action buttons in the page list view - the "Delete" link in edit mode will still be trash. Otherwise if you really feel the need, you could hook into Pages:trash (https://github.com/ryancramerdesign/ProcessWire/blob/dev/wire/core/Pages.php#L1517) and change the behavior to delete instead. BUT, is trashing really so bad?

More of an FYI than anything - this is the one I have always used: http://www.ozhiker.com/electronics/pjmt/ It doesn't seem to be actively maintained anymore, but it has always worked for me as needed.

It may not cover all needs, but I usually use an InputfiedMarkup: $f = wire('modules')->get("InputfieldMarkup"); $f->value = "Any HTML you want here";

Don't forget this thread: https://processwire.com/talk/topic/2089-create-simple-forms-using-api/

While I agree with earlier posters about not needing to update PW installations, honestly I agree more with teppo - I want older customers to reap the benefits of improved admin functionality. And course we are not just talking about the PW core here - there are also often 3rd party module updates - sure these updates might just add new functionality and there is always the chance that they might break something, but if you do your due diligence in checking the revised versions, it is nice to be able to update across all your sites at once. I actually had/have some plans to build something like this - but am waiting to see if the demand is going to be there. Module Toolkit is something I use in the meantime for updating all 3rd party modules on a site at once - it can be a significant time saver. But be aware that this module is currently alpha/early beta - I would like to get back to it and release it properly, but juggling priorities as usual

Hi @Christophe, I expect the issue is the missing ffmpeg on the server, although they are only used for making the video thumbnail/poster image, so I could probably do a class check and if it's not available, just not generate the image. Would this be acceptable for your needs? It would of course mean that the player would have blank black screen until it starts playing the video.

A quote in the conclusions section: "From the platform possibilities ProcessWire was best suited for the task due its developer centered approach by making the design part of the site the responsibility of the developers. This responsibility also brought the desired freedom to change the platform in the ways needed."

If you are using the automatic page name format option, then this module makes the name much more configurable: http://modules.processwire.com/modules/process-setup-page-name/

It really depends on how you can modify the third party booking software. Potentially you might be able to bootstrap PW into the software's processing script and save the info to PW fields using PW's API. You could use Profields table, or even just child pages - either can be populated via the API. We can help if we know more about how the booking software works.

The easiest way will be to buy the Pro forms module: http://modules.processwire.com/modules/form-builder/ Otherwise there is this free module: http://modules.processwire.com/modules/form-template-processor-mailer/ Or if you want complete control, start reading about processing forms via the API here: https://processwire.com/talk/topic/2089-create-simple-forms-using-api/ - with this you can do anything you want, but you'll have to get your hands dirty

I am not sure why it would have just stopped working, but it would be good if you could check to see if http://fma.loc/imagerenamer-copyInput is actually a valid link. Is there an index.php file or similar in there that the ajax url is supposed to be calling?

Yep - hover links are now default in the core although it can be disabled with a config setting: https://processwire.com/blog/posts/processwire-core-updates-2.5.26/#pagelist-now-supports-hover-actions They do work a little differently in the core than with that custom css. In the core you have to mouseover the Title of the page, but with that CSS you can mouseover anywhere on the line which I actually prefer.

Just in case someone else wants to do something like this, I just wanted to note that hooking before ProcessPageEdit::execute and foreaching through wire('breadcrumbs') works well. But for my particular needs I had problems with this approach and the Reno theme and so had to take another approach which worked: hooking after Process::breadcrumb Anyway, thought it might be useful info for others.

I think it should just be a matter of setting the page to hidden.

Have either of you tried 2.7.2 (current stable) or 2.7.3 (current dev)? If there is no improvement I would be curious what happens in PW 3.x but it still might be worth filing a Github issue to get the 2.x branch fixed.

This works for me: $user->of(false); $user->member->gender = 123; $user->member->save("gender"); EDIT: or for something even simpler using the new method introduced in 2.6.9 (https://processwire.com/blog/posts/processwire-2.6.9-core-updates-and-new-procache-version/#new-page-gt-setandsave-method): $user->member->setAndSave('gender', 123);

@tpr - I have just added an option to modify the breadcrumbs to remove pages that are outside the restricted branch. It seems to be working well here, but please let me know if you notice any problems. It's a new config setting option that needs to be checked. This example is for a user restricted to "Branch One" Modified Breadcrumb: Full / Unmodified Breadcrumb:

Just wanted to wrap this up and let folks know that the problem that @Christophe discovered has been fixed.

Hi @fablei - sorry for the rough start. Can you tell us if it makes a difference if you upload the image to the images field directly, rather than via the CKEditor upload? If that works ok, what about if you subsequently insert them into a CKEditor field and save the page again? Also, is there any difference if you upgrade to the latest stable 2.7.2, or the main dev version 2.7.3?

Just wanted to wrap this up and let folks know that the problem that @Christophe discovered with AdminRestrictBranch has been fixed.

Just wanted to wrap this up and let folks know that the problem that @Christophe discovered with AdminRestrictBranch has been fixed.