adrian

Yeah, @Robin S is mostly correct. The array approach seems like a good idea, but it will end up biting you in many cases. For ease of readability and building up complex selectors, I do build them with a regular php array and then simply implode the array with a comma to get the string selector. This is now my goto approach for any complex dynamic selectors.

Should be fixed now!

https://github.com/processwire/processwire-issues/issues/905

I've just commented on that old closed issue: https://github.com/ryancramerdesign/ProcessWire/issues/1868#issuecomment-500081534 Note that the change needs to happen in ListerPro, rather than the core (I think).

Are other html emails from your system (sent with a wireMail) working as expected? In other words, is it only emails from this module that are the problem?

What about the email provider? Can you try to a gmail address to confirm the problem?

@bramwolf - does it make a difference if you use a different email client? What are you using?

https://github.com/processwire/processwire-issues/issues/896

I hadn't looked - thanks for posting that - it's pretty clear from that @todo that Ryan know about this and that it needs fixing. Obviously calling findOne() if it's a selector isn't enough to get it to return NullPage as things currently stand, but this really should be fixed because with the current behavior you can't simply do a normal: if($result->id) on an in memory selector that returns no results because of the null vs NullPage - this has annoyed me for a long time ?

Thanks for chiming in! Here are some more outputs which I think help to back up the assertion that it should return a NullPage

What does everyone think of this? Shouldn't they both return NullPage? I'd love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!

Not testing in the context of this module, but this looks to work as expected: Does that work as expected at your end?

I don't know - we'd have to get @Pete's input on why that was done, but if you want to put together a PR to add a module setting where these can be configured, I can push to the main repo.

Did it create the WEBP version? Maybe the JPG was smaller so it served that up instead. In my limited experience, it's quite common that the webp version is actually larger :)

It doesn't seem like this is necessary anymore - not sure if the change happened on this update: https://processwire.com/blog/posts/processwire-3.0.107-core-updates/

Sounds like what you are looking for doesn't really fit with this way this module is designed to work. You might be better off with https://github.com/matjazpotocnik/DynamicRoles although I do find the approach used in that module a bit weird and maybe not very efficient with a lot of pages.

New child pages of a protected parent will be protected by default if you have the protect child pages option checked.

@PWaddict - not sure when that started happening, but should be fixed now.

Not sure why you are seeing that. What are the settings for your images field?

Probably, but the approach will need to be different and I should also add vimeo support for this as well, so it's a bit of work. I won't have any time for this for a while - any chance you'd be willing to tackle it and submit a PR?

Done, but I modified to allow all fields that extend the Text field type.

@szabesz has to be the most generous here on the forums. Look at the given count, and that is since the end of 2015!

Yeah, me too ?

This works: $this->addHookAfter('Pages::cloned', function(HookEvent $event) { $p = $event->arguments(1); $p->created = time(); $p->save(array('quiet' => true)); }); This doesn't handle "modified", but for my needs I don't need that because publishing the newly cloned page will adjust that automatically then. But, if you do, you could add this to the hook: $sql = "UPDATE `pages` SET `modified` = NOW() WHERE `id` = '".$p->id."';"; $this->wire('db')->query($sql);

Thanks for your thoughts @wbmnfktr - it's actually weird to me that the core module is called "Clone" but the page list action button is called "Copy". I kind of agree with clone having the same dates because a clone should be identical, but I also don't think that in reality anyone actually wants a clone in the end - usually it's just a quick way to start a new page from existing content and modifying it to your needs after that. An option for changing the behavior might be a decent approach to the problem. Anyone else have any thoughts? I think in reality I'll probably end up hooking into ___clone or ___cloned and adjust "created" via SQL (or the quite save option) because I don't honestly see that Ryan will want to change the current behavior.