Jump to content
ryan

PW 3.0.25 & 2.8.25 – Enhanced page finding selectors

Recommended Posts

This week we've got a pretty major upgrade to our page finding selectors that we think you will find useful in a lot of cases! Now you can accomplish much more with less, and this really brings our selectors to the next level.

https://processwire.com/blog/posts/pw-3.0.25/

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent update! Thanks Ryan! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much Ryan for your amazing work.

I'm wondering if you could tell us an ETA for the stable release of 2.8. Will it be this month, August or next year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ryan and crew - thanks alot for this update - awsome as usual and making me looking forward to new goodies awaiting us every next friday evening. I'm relatively new here and have become a great fan of processwire within very little time.

But in 3.0.25 there seems to be a bug (or some incompatibility?):

Since I updated from 3.0.24 to 3.0.25 all the "create new" links under my input-pagefields  (from "allow new pages to be created from field") are gone. When replacing back the wire folder to version 3.0.22 (which I had kept) they appear again! This works back and forth. So I have a solution to work with but of course it would be nice to be able to update to higher versions.

Has anybody else observed this issue?

Thanks in advance for any fixing or explanation.

Markus from rainy switzerland

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pursuant to the post above by @MarcU, i am seeing the same behavior, that is the "Add New" functionality for page selects appears to be broken (ProcessWire 3.0.25 devns)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ryan, you say in the blog post:

Quote

While you could have also accomplished this with nested sub-selectors, the syntax may have kept you from pursuing it, even when you could.

If a person is comfortable enough writing nested sub-selectors (or already has some code with nested sub-selectors) is there a reason to switch to the new a.b.c.d syntax besides it being more concise/readable? Would there be any performance difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...