From tony at tonybibbs.com Mon Dec 23 16:05:41 2002 From: tony at tonybibbs.com (Tony Bibbs) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 15:05:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: [geeklog-modules] Forms Requirements Message-ID: Gents, Please take a look at the first stab of the requirements for the forms module. I was a bit rushed to try and get this done over a couple of lunch hours the past couple work days so I'm confident this isn't a complete set but I think I got us a good start. I tried not to get too tied up in implementation details but I did add notes where I felt it was appropriate. JT, since you have volunteered to help a bit, I added you to this list. Yes, this is a word document. When possible use Word's change tracker stuff otherwise just send the changes or discussion items to this list. If you all could give this a good once over here over the holiday break and get any changes back to me by Friday, January 3rd that would let a few of us get started on this. Please really give this the eye of scrutiny because I feel the power this plugin give may warrant Geeklog to include it in a default installation (similar to static pages). Most of you can ignore the rest of this message. For those of you unfamiliar with what the module is here is a quick recap. Almost all of us have a need to build forms on our sites. Nearly 100% of the time this means custom DB changes and custom code. I ran across this problem with my buddy JT in a past job working with insurance enrollment and eligibilities. I've since left the insurance world but the need for all this spans many industries and the web in general. This modules attempts to provide these features: 1) Provides a way to create forms dynamically via a web interface with no need for custom database changes 2) Implements the Geeklog plug-in API so the proper hooks into Geeklog can be added 3) Obviously, this allows users to enter data and includes validation support (on the server) 4) Fields on the forms can be either global (i.e. reusable) or live for the purpose of one specific form. 5) Changes to data is audited for a configurable amount of time 6) A set of standard reports is available. Now you have enough info to start making sense of the requirements document. Thanks, --Tony -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: forms_module_requirements.doc Type: application/msword Size: 223232 bytes Desc: Forms Requirements URL: From tony at tonybibbs.com Mon Dec 23 22:14:40 2002 From: tony at tonybibbs.com (Tony Bibbs) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:14:40 -0600 Subject: [geeklog-modules] Forums data model Message-ID: <3E07D120.2090205@tonybibbs.com> In anticipation of you guys releasing the forums module soon, I'd like to get my hands on the latest data model for it so I can start writing a conversion script to move my phpBB crap over to the new GL module. Probably crank that out over the break so I have something halfway nerdy to do ;-) Blaine, I'm assuming you own that, right? --Tony From tony at tonybibbs.com Mon Dec 23 22:20:16 2002 From: tony at tonybibbs.com (Tony Bibbs) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:20:16 -0600 Subject: [geeklog-modules] Modules after SF.net Message-ID: <3E07D270.6060308@tonybibbs.com> For those of you module developers that aren't quite in "the know" we have a new Project and CVS server that we plan on using in our efforts to ditch sf.net. It's on a dual Xeon 1.7 server that is RAID5'd. I'd like to eventually see some of you move your projects over to http://project.geeklog.net once we get all those features working and also start using our CVS server. Also, I'm looking for a volunteer to take a night backup of CVS and any databases. The idea is I'd set up a script to do the back up and then push the resulting tarballs to another server as a back up. Anyway, one of the big complaints we get from users is all are modules, etc are dispersed and they want one place for all this stuff. So, to be clear, what we want to do is move all modules code from sf.net to our servers then put all downloads into the file management plugin on the new www.geeklog.net site (once we launch that). You module developers would get your own project space in CVS in case you are wondering (no shell acces, though). Chew on all this and dump any feedback you have to this list. --Tony From tomw at pigstye.net Tue Dec 24 08:45:24 2002 From: tomw at pigstye.net (Tom Willett) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:45:24 +0000 Subject: [geeklog-modules] Modules after SF.net In-Reply-To: <3E07D270.6060308@tonybibbs.com> References: <3E07D270.6060308@tonybibbs.com> Message-ID: <20021224134524.M91765@pigstye.net> On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:20:16 -0600, Tony Bibbs wrote > For those of you module developers that aren't quite in "the know" we > have a new Project and CVS server that we plan on using in our efforts > to ditch sf.net. It's on a dual Xeon 1.7 server that is RAID5'd. I'd > like to eventually see some of you move your projects over to > http://project.geeklog.net once we get all those features working and > also start using our CVS server. Also, I'm looking for a volunteer to > take a night backup of CVS and any databases. The idea is I'd set up a > script to do the back up and then push the resulting tarballs to another > server as a back up. > > Anyway, one of the big complaints we get from users is all are modules, > etc are dispersed and they want one place for all this stuff. So, to be > clear, what we want to do is move all modules code from sf.net to our > servers then put all downloads into the file management plugin on the > new www.geeklog.net site (once we launch that). You module developers > would get your own project space in CVS in case you are wondering (no > shell acces, though). > > Chew on all this and dump any feedback you have to this list. > > --Tony > > _______________________________________________ > geeklog-modules mailing list > geeklog-modules at lists.geeklog.net > http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-modules I will have no problem with moving my stuff to the official geeklog cvs. I also think it is a good idea to centralize the distribution of geeklog and its addons. There is one issue that needs to be addressed and there is no easy solution to it. Many open-source development teams struggle with it. The issue is the status of the software held in cvs and offered for download. If the downloads and cvs are handled by the geeklog team and served by the geeklog server, then they would take on an 'official' or 'authorized' status. If these addons them become 'official', someone from the geeklog team will have to take the time to evaluate them and decide which ones are 'authorized' and which ones are not. Or which ones get into cvs and which ones do not. With an active addon community, this can amount to a large investment in time and effort. Do we really want the geeklog development team spending their time evaluating other peoples software? No. If one person is delegated this job to make the process easier, then it can become their own little fiefdom and their own little hell. (I do not want the job of deciding whose work is official and whose is not!) My approach to this is has been to open up the gplugs site to anyone who wants to use the services. I thereby avoid the conflict, by making no value judgments on code quality. I do not think that this should be the approach taken by the geeklog projects cvs and download servers. Any attempt, however, to designate some coders efforts as 'authorized' and others as not can too easily result in hurt feelings and conflict. I propose the following scenario: Develop a set of concrete criteria for inclusion in the 'authorized' archive. Make these criteria specific so that it will take little time to evaluate a piece of software. Give the developers, an incentive to make their software 'authorized', e.g. allow them to display an 'authorized' logo, give them space on the geeklog cvs server, add their software to the 'authorized' list of downloads. Make it easy for a developer to find these specifications and submit their software for 'authorization'. To facilitate this and at the same time maintain some control, maintain a separate space, perhaps on sf.net providing support for unauthorized addons and hacks, with the intent of funneling these developers into the authorized channel. It is important that the path to authorization be made clear. Anyway you do it, it means more work managing people. The question is what will be the least work and result in the most benefit? Tom -- Tom Willett tomw at pigstye.ne From langmail at sympatico.ca Tue Dec 24 00:25:28 2002 From: langmail at sympatico.ca (Blaine Lang) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:25:28 -0500 Subject: [geeklog-modules] Forums data model References: <3E07D120.2090205@tonybibbs.com> Message-ID: <00b601c2ab0c$deb58330$9a0a10ac@xpbl1> Tony, The datamodel was mostly defined when I got involved. We have added a few settings but nothing else. There is some inconistencies in the datamodel and field naming could be better. I expected to only have a week of effort when I got involved so making any changing the datamodel was not in my plans. I did not know it would turn into the effort it has been so far. Any way, the attached is docment outlines the schema. Blaine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Bibbs" To: Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 10:14 PM Subject: [geeklog-modules] Forums data model > In anticipation of you guys releasing the forums module soon, I'd like > to get my hands on the latest data model for it so I can start writing a > conversion script to move my phpBB crap over to the new GL module. > Probably crank that out over the break so I have something halfway > nerdy to do ;-) > > Blaine, I'm assuming you own that, right? > > --Tony > > _______________________________________________ > geeklog-modules mailing list > geeklog-modules at lists.geeklog.net > http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-modules -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Forum_schema.txt URL: From tony at tonybibbs.com Tue Dec 24 12:38:42 2002 From: tony at tonybibbs.com (Tony Bibbs) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 11:38:42 -0600 (CST) Subject: [geeklog-modules] Forums data model In-Reply-To: <00b601c2ab0c$deb58330$9a0a10ac@xpbl1> Message-ID: Thanks, You are scaring me...is it *that* bad? Oh, and have you guys looked at it from a performance stand point? --Tony On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Blaine Lang wrote: > Tony, > > The datamodel was mostly defined when I got involved. We have added a few > settings but nothing else. > There is some inconistencies in the datamodel and field naming could be > better. > > I expected to only have a week of effort when I got involved so making any > changing the datamodel was not in my plans. I did not know it would turn > into the effort it has been so far. > > Any way, the attached is docment outlines the schema. > > Blaine > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tony Bibbs" > To: > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 10:14 PM > Subject: [geeklog-modules] Forums data model > > > > In anticipation of you guys releasing the forums module soon, I'd like > > to get my hands on the latest data model for it so I can start writing a > > conversion script to move my phpBB crap over to the new GL module. > > Probably crank that out over the break so I have something halfway > > nerdy to do ;-) > > > > Blaine, I'm assuming you own that, right? > > > > --Tony > > > > _______________________________________________ > > geeklog-modules mailing list > > geeklog-modules at lists.geeklog.net > > http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-modules > From langmail at sympatico.ca Sun Dec 29 12:46:52 2002 From: langmail at sympatico.ca (Blaine Lang) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:46:52 -0500 Subject: [geeklog-modules] Forms Requirements References: Message-ID: <004801c2af62$4580f410$9a0a10ac@xpbl1> Tony, This is a very comprehensive requirements documemt but tried to add some questions and notes. I had "track changes" on so they should be visible. I added a section at the end called Questions. Cheers, Blaine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Bibbs" To: ; "Jeff Thompson" Gents, > > Please take a look at the first stab of the requirements for the forms > module. I was a bit rushed to try and get this done over a couple of > lunch hours the past couple work days so I'm confident this isn't a > complete set but I think I got us a good start. > > I tried not to get too tied up in implementation details but I did add > notes where I felt it was appropriate. JT, since you have volunteered to > help a bit, I added you to this list. > > Yes, this is a word document. When possible use Word's change tracker > stuff otherwise just send the changes or discussion items to this list. > If you all could give this a good once over here over the holiday break > and get any changes back to me by Friday, January 3rd that would let a few > of us get started on this. Please really give this the eye of scrutiny > because I feel the power this plugin give may warrant Geeklog to include > it in a default installation (similar to static pages). > > Most of you can ignore the rest of this message. For those of you > unfamiliar with what the module is here is a quick recap. > > Almost all of us have a need to build forms on our sites. Nearly 100% of > the time this means custom DB changes and custom code. I ran across this > problem with my buddy JT in a past job working with insurance enrollment > and eligibilities. I've since left the insurance world but the need for > all this spans many industries and the web in general. This modules > attempts to provide these features: > 1) Provides a way to create forms dynamically via a web interface with no > need for custom database changes > 2) Implements the Geeklog plug-in API so the proper hooks into Geeklog can > be added > 3) Obviously, this allows users to enter data and includes validation > support (on the server) > 4) Fields on the forms can be either global (i.e. reusable) or live for > the purpose of one specific form. > 5) Changes to data is audited for a configurable amount of time > 6) A set of standard reports is available. > > Now you have enough info to start making sense of the requirements > document. > > Thanks, > > --Tony > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: forms_module_requirements-bl1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 265216 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dirk at haun-online.de Mon Dec 30 15:21:41 2002 From: dirk at haun-online.de (Dirk Haun) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:21:41 +0100 Subject: [geeklog-modules] Returning entries for the Admin menu Message-ID: <20021230202141.15931@smtp.haun-online.de> I'm posting this here so that other plugin developers can check their plugins for this problem, too. See first to know what I'm talking about. In short: When you give a user Admin rights to a plugin only (but not to any of the core Admin features), Geeklog will not display the Admin menu for this user. This is obviously a bug. When I tried to fix that, I noticed that the Forum plugin _always_ returns an Admin option: function plugin_getadminoption_forum() { global $_TABLES, $_CONF; $results = DB_query("SELECT * FROM {$_TABLES['gf_topic']}"); $endresult = DB_numRows($results); $siteurl = $_CONF['site_url']; return array('Forum', $_CONF['site_url'] . '/admin/plugins/forum/ index.php', $endresult); } So when I fix the above-mentioned problem, the Admin menu will show up for every user (even anonymous users), listing only the option for the Forum Admin. Of course, the Forum plugin won't let unpriviledged users do anything, but the option shouldn't be displayed in the first place. Compare this with the same function from the Static Pages plugin: function plugin_getadminoption_staticpages() { global $_CONF, $LANG_STATIC, $_TABLES; if (SEC_hasRights('staticpages.edit,staticpages.delete','OR')) { return array($LANG_STATIC[staticpages], $_CONF['site_admin_url'] . '/plugins/staticpages/index.php', DB_count($_TABLES['staticpage'])); } } In other words: The plugin's getadminoption() function should do a check for the proper rights before returning an entry for the Admin menu. bye, Dirk -- http://www.haun-online.de/ http://geeklog.info/ From tomw at pigstye.net Mon Dec 30 15:55:48 2002 From: tomw at pigstye.net (Tom Willett) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 20:55:48 +0000 Subject: [geeklog-modules] Returning entries for the Admin menu In-Reply-To: <20021230202141.15931@smtp.haun-online.de> References: <20021230202141.15931@smtp.haun-online.de> Message-ID: <20021230205548.M11271@pigstye.net> Checked, Menu1.2 -- OK Menu1.61 -- OK External Pages -- OK Visitor Stats -- OK Contacts -- OK Universal Plugin -- OK Static Pages 1.2 -- OK On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:21:41 +0100, Dirk Haun wrote > I'm posting this here so that other plugin developers can check their > plugins for this problem, too. > > See first to > know what I'm talking about. In short: When you give a user Admin rights > to a plugin only (but not to any of the core Admin features), Geeklog > will not display the Admin menu for this user. This is obviously a bug. > > When I tried to fix that, I noticed that the Forum plugin _always_ > returns an Admin option: > > function plugin_getadminoption_forum() > { > global $_TABLES, $_CONF; > > $results = DB_query("SELECT * FROM {$_TABLES['gf_topic']}"); > $endresult = DB_numRows($results); > $siteurl = $_CONF['site_url']; > > return array('Forum', $_CONF['site_url'] . '/admin/plugins/forum/ > index.php', $endresult); > > } > > So when I fix the above-mentioned problem, the Admin menu will show up > for every user (even anonymous users), listing only the option for the > Forum Admin. Of course, the Forum plugin won't let unpriviledged users do > anything, but the option shouldn't be displayed in the first place. > > Compare this with the same function from the Static Pages plugin: > > function plugin_getadminoption_staticpages() > { > global $_CONF, $LANG_STATIC, $_TABLES; > > if (SEC_hasRights('staticpages.edit,staticpages.delete','OR')) { > return array($LANG_STATIC[staticpages], $_CONF['site_admin_url'] > . '/plugins/staticpages/index.php', DB_count($_TABLES['staticpage'])); > } > } > > In other words: The plugin's getadminoption() function should do a check > for the proper rights before returning an entry for the Admin menu. > > bye, Dirk > -- Tom Willett tomw at pigstye.net From tony at tonybibbs.com Mon Dec 30 16:13:53 2002 From: tony at tonybibbs.com (Tony Bibbs) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:13:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: [geeklog-modules] Returning entries for the Admin menu In-Reply-To: <20021230205548.M11271@pigstye.net> Message-ID: Tom and Dirk, can I talk you two into looking at merging some ideas from Tom's static pages into the GL-version? I know we've talked about this before and I see a few bells/whistiles in Tom's version that would be nice to see in the GL-one plus it will stop the confusion on which to use from the end-user's prespective. I know this was originally brought up but I thought maybe now is a good time to revisit it. --Tony On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Tom Willett wrote: > Checked, > > Menu1.2 -- OK > Menu1.61 -- OK > External Pages -- OK > Visitor Stats -- OK > Contacts -- OK > Universal Plugin -- OK > Static Pages 1.2 -- OK > > On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:21:41 +0100, Dirk Haun wrote > > I'm posting this here so that other plugin developers can check their > > plugins for this problem, too. > > > > See first to > > know what I'm talking about. In short: When you give a user Admin rights > > to a plugin only (but not to any of the core Admin features), Geeklog > > will not display the Admin menu for this user. This is obviously a bug. > > > > When I tried to fix that, I noticed that the Forum plugin _always_ > > returns an Admin option: > > > > function plugin_getadminoption_forum() > > { > > global $_TABLES, $_CONF; > > > > $results = DB_query("SELECT * FROM {$_TABLES['gf_topic']}"); > > $endresult = DB_numRows($results); > > $siteurl = $_CONF['site_url']; > > > > return array('Forum', $_CONF['site_url'] . '/admin/plugins/forum/ > > index.php', $endresult); > > > > } > > > > So when I fix the above-mentioned problem, the Admin menu will show up > > for every user (even anonymous users), listing only the option for the > > Forum Admin. Of course, the Forum plugin won't let unpriviledged users do > > anything, but the option shouldn't be displayed in the first place. > > > > Compare this with the same function from the Static Pages plugin: > > > > function plugin_getadminoption_staticpages() > > { > > global $_CONF, $LANG_STATIC, $_TABLES; > > > > if (SEC_hasRights('staticpages.edit,staticpages.delete','OR')) { > > return array($LANG_STATIC[staticpages], $_CONF['site_admin_url'] > > . '/plugins/staticpages/index.php', DB_count($_TABLES['staticpage'])); > > } > > } > > > > In other words: The plugin's getadminoption() function should do a check > > for the proper rights before returning an entry for the Admin menu. > > > > bye, Dirk > > > -- > Tom Willett > tomw at pigstye.net > _______________________________________________ > geeklog-modules mailing list > geeklog-modules at lists.geeklog.net > http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-modules > From tony at tonybibbs.com Mon Dec 30 16:15:27 2002 From: tony at tonybibbs.com (Tony Bibbs) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:15:27 -0600 (CST) Subject: [geeklog-modules] Forms module feedback still needed Message-ID: Other than Blaine, I haven't recieved any feedback (/me looks at knuckles). This is just a friendly reminder to send any feedback in. --Tony From tomw at pigstye.net Mon Dec 30 17:02:52 2002 From: tomw at pigstye.net (Tom Willett) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:02:52 +0000 Subject: [geeklog-modules] Returning entries for the Admin menu In-Reply-To: References: <20021230205548.M11271@pigstye.net> Message-ID: <20021230220252.M11390@pigstye.net> Fine with me -- the two major functionallities that I see used are the ability to use php and being privs aware. I am not sure the expanded search is ever used -- I have never had a question about it. The one thing that I would suggest is to expand the documentation about how to use php in static pages. They will not read it, but at least we can point them to it. I recently made changes to the privileage system so that in the event a person does not have access to a page it will either display a message to that effect or display the logon screen stating that they must be logged in to access the page. Currently you can have either one or the other, but it would be nice to combine the two and make it a configuration option. Tell me what you would like for me to do along these lines and I will do it. Or you can just raid the cvs and incorporate what you want. Tom On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:13:53 -0600 (CST), Tony Bibbs wrote > Tom and Dirk, can I talk you two into looking at merging some ideas from > Tom's static pages into the GL-version? I know we've talked about this > before and I see a few bells/whistiles in Tom's version that would be nice > to see in the GL-one plus it will stop the confusion on which to use from > the end-user's prespective. > > I know this was originally brought up but I thought maybe now is a good > time to revisit it. > > --Tony > > On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Tom Willett wrote: > > > Checked, > > > > Menu1.2 -- OK > > Menu1.61 -- OK > > External Pages -- OK > > Visitor Stats -- OK > > Contacts -- OK > > Universal Plugin -- OK > > Static Pages 1.2 -- OK > > > > On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:21:41 +0100, Dirk Haun wrote > > > I'm posting this here so that other plugin developers can check their > > > plugins for this problem, too. > > > > > > See first to > > > know what I'm talking about. In short: When you give a user Admin rights > > > to a plugin only (but not to any of the core Admin features), Geeklog > > > will not display the Admin menu for this user. This is obviously a bug. > > > > > > When I tried to fix that, I noticed that the Forum plugin _always_ > > > returns an Admin option: > > > > > > function plugin_getadminoption_forum() > > > { > > > global $_TABLES, $_CONF; > > > > > > $results = DB_query("SELECT * FROM {$_TABLES['gf_topic']}"); > > > $endresult = DB_numRows($results); > > > $siteurl = $_CONF['site_url']; > > > > > > return array('Forum', $_CONF['site_url'] . '/admin/plugins/forum/ > > > index.php', $endresult); > > > > > > } > > > > > > So when I fix the above-mentioned problem, the Admin menu will show up > > > for every user (even anonymous users), listing only the option for the > > > Forum Admin. Of course, the Forum plugin won't let unpriviledged users do > > > anything, but the option shouldn't be displayed in the first place. > > > > > > Compare this with the same function from the Static Pages plugin: > > > > > > function plugin_getadminoption_staticpages() > > > { > > > global $_CONF, $LANG_STATIC, $_TABLES; > > > > > > if (SEC_hasRights('staticpages.edit,staticpages.delete','OR')) { > > > return array($LANG_STATIC[staticpages], $_CONF ['site_admin_url'] > > > . '/plugins/staticpages/index.php', DB_count($_TABLES['staticpage'])); > > > } > > > } > > > > > > In other words: The plugin's getadminoption() function should do a check > > > for the proper rights before returning an entry for the Admin menu. > > > > > > bye, Dirk > > > > > -- > > Tom Willett > > tomw at pigstye.net > > _______________________________________________ > > geeklog-modules mailing list > > geeklog-modules at lists.geeklog.net > > http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-modules > > > > _______________________________________________ > geeklog-modules mailing list > geeklog-modules at lists.geeklog.net > http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-modules -- Tom Willett tomw at pigstye.net From tony at tonybibbs.com Mon Dec 30 17:22:45 2002 From: tony at tonybibbs.com (Tony Bibbs) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:22:45 -0600 (CST) Subject: [geeklog-modules] Flood protection... Message-ID: See this: http://www.geeklog.net/article.php?story=20021230102321420 This brings up a good point that should be emphasized in the Plugin Documentation. If you have a plugin that let's users submit anything, you should throttle that either with the speed limits already used in config.php or create a new on in your plugin's own config file. When we get our shit together and actually launch a bonafied GL plugin site with official hacks we'll want to add this to the checklist of what makes an 'official' GL plugin/hack. --Tony From dirk at haun-online.de Mon Dec 30 17:57:54 2002 From: dirk at haun-online.de (Dirk Haun) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 23:57:54 +0100 Subject: [geeklog-modules] Returning entries for the Admin menu In-Reply-To: <20021230220252.M11390@pigstye.net> References: <20021230220252.M11390@pigstye.net> Message-ID: <20021230225754.1136@smtp.haun-online.de> Tom Willett wrote: >Fine with me -- the two major functionallities that I see used are the >ability to use php and being privs aware. Yep, I really would like to see the permissions added to static pages. Personally, I don't need the PHP support, but since many people seem to ask for that, why not. >I am not sure the expanded search is ever used I didn't even know there was such a thing in your version ;-) >Tell me what you would like for me to do along these lines and I will do >it. Or you can just raid the cvs and incorporate what you want. My main concern is that there are some subtle differences between the two versions (or at least I assume there are). I don't remember the exact circumstances, but when Phill announced that he was going to extend the plugin to support PHP, I asked him to use not the version from the Geeklog version that was out back then, but use the version from CVS instead. Unfortunately, he didn't do that and at least his versions have always had some minor differences since then. Things like valid HTML and the ability to wrap static pages in a block. That's what held me back from just grabbing the extended version and throwing it into CVS. I've always wanted to merge the two versions again but never found the time (and doubt that I will now). So if you're into painstakingly comparing the two versions line by line to figure out what those differences are (if any), then please feel free to do so ;-) Looking at the CVS history of the files should give you an idea of what I'm talking about. Then there's the issue of the install script. We need to extend Geeklog's install script to safely(!) upgrade from any version of the plugin that the user may have installed. I've come across reports where the upgrade process failed for the extended version and the plugin was reported as being "locked" because of that. Apparently, people had some problems recovering from that state. It must be avoided that this happens when people run Geeklog's install script. To summarize: I want the permissions, I would accept the PHP support, and I don't care about the extended search. If you think you can provide us with a version that has these and still has the changes that were made in the original plugin, then please do that. We would happily accept such a version as the new official version and ship it with Geeklog. Of course, I would be available for any help you would need with this (especially, I assume, with the install script). bye, Dirk -- http://www.haun-online.de/ http://www.haun.info/ From tony at tonybibbs.com Mon Dec 30 18:04:24 2002 From: tony at tonybibbs.com (Tony Bibbs) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:04:24 -0600 (CST) Subject: [geeklog-modules] Returning entries for the Admin menu In-Reply-To: <20021230225754.1136@smtp.haun-online.de> Message-ID: Actually, unless you object Dirk, maybe it would be easier just to give Tom CVS access. I've seen enough of his code to feel comfortable with that if you do. Tom, Dirk has a point on the version used. One big problem was for a long time the CVS version didn't use the $_TABLES[] stuff which made for support problems (it has since been fixed). I believe the CVS version is ready for your additions to be merged now if you want to do it. Having these changes in will help tremendously, thanks for working together on this. --Tony On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Dirk Haun wrote: > Tom Willett wrote: > > >Fine with me -- the two major functionallities that I see used are the > >ability to use php and being privs aware. > > Yep, I really would like to see the permissions added to static pages. > Personally, I don't need the PHP support, but since many people seem to > ask for that, why not. > > > >I am not sure the expanded search is ever used > > I didn't even know there was such a thing in your version ;-) > > > >Tell me what you would like for me to do along these lines and I will do > >it. Or you can just raid the cvs and incorporate what you want. > > My main concern is that there are some subtle differences between the two > versions (or at least I assume there are). I don't remember the exact > circumstances, but when Phill announced that he was going to extend the > plugin to support PHP, I asked him to use not the version from the > Geeklog version that was out back then, but use the version from CVS > instead. Unfortunately, he didn't do that and at least his versions have > always had some minor differences since then. Things like valid HTML and > the ability to wrap static pages in a block. > > That's what held me back from just grabbing the extended version and > throwing it into CVS. I've always wanted to merge the two versions again > but never found the time (and doubt that I will now). > > So if you're into painstakingly comparing the two versions line by line > to figure out what those differences are (if any), then please feel free > to do so ;-) Looking at the CVS history of the files should give you an > idea of what I'm talking about. > > Then there's the issue of the install script. We need to extend Geeklog's > install script to safely(!) upgrade from any version of the plugin that > the user may have installed. I've come across reports where the upgrade > process failed for the extended version and the plugin was reported as > being "locked" because of that. Apparently, people had some problems > recovering from that state. It must be avoided that this happens when > people run Geeklog's install script. > > To summarize: I want the permissions, I would accept the PHP support, and > I don't care about the extended search. If you think you can provide us > with a version that has these and still has the changes that were made in > the original plugin, then please do that. We would happily accept such a > version as the new official version and ship it with Geeklog. > > Of course, I would be available for any help you would need with this > (especially, I assume, with the install script). > > bye, Dirk > > > From langmail at sympatico.ca Mon Dec 30 18:23:14 2002 From: langmail at sympatico.ca (Blaine Lang) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:23:14 -0500 Subject: [geeklog-modules] Returning entries for the Admin menu References: <20021230202141.15931@smtp.haun-online.de> Message-ID: <001c01c2b05a$6d94aac0$9a0a10ac@xpbl1> > Geeklog will not display the Admin menu for this user. This is obviously a bug. I noted this when I created my first plugin - the FileMgmt Plugin. I thought I had recorded that as a bug then. > I noticed that the Forum plugin _always_ returns an Admin option: Thanks and it will be fixed for the next release. Blaine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dirk Haun" To: Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 3:21 PM Subject: [geeklog-modules] Returning entries for the Admin menu > I'm posting this here so that other plugin developers can check their > plugins for this problem, too. > > See first to > know what I'm talking about. In short: When you give a user Admin rights > to a plugin only (but not to any of the core Admin features), Geeklog > will not display the Admin menu for this user. This is obviously a bug. > > When I tried to fix that, I noticed that the Forum plugin _always_ > returns an Admin option: > > function plugin_getadminoption_forum() > { > global $_TABLES, $_CONF; > > $results = DB_query("SELECT * FROM {$_TABLES['gf_topic']}"); > $endresult = DB_numRows($results); > $siteurl = $_CONF['site_url']; > > return array('Forum', $_CONF['site_url'] . '/admin/plugins/forum/ > index.php', $endresult); > > } > > So when I fix the above-mentioned problem, the Admin menu will show up > for every user (even anonymous users), listing only the option for the > Forum Admin. Of course, the Forum plugin won't let unpriviledged users do > anything, but the option shouldn't be displayed in the first place. > > Compare this with the same function from the Static Pages plugin: > > function plugin_getadminoption_staticpages() > { > global $_CONF, $LANG_STATIC, $_TABLES; > > if (SEC_hasRights('staticpages.edit,staticpages.delete','OR')) { > return array($LANG_STATIC[staticpages], $_CONF['site_admin_url'] > . '/plugins/staticpages/index.php', DB_count($_TABLES['staticpage'])); > } > } > > In other words: The plugin's getadminoption() function should do a check > for the proper rights before returning an entry for the Admin menu. > > bye, Dirk > > > -- > http://www.haun-online.de/ > http://geeklog.info/ > > _______________________________________________ > geeklog-modules mailing list > geeklog-modules at lists.geeklog.net > http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-modules From slord at marelina.com Mon Dec 30 18:24:46 2002 From: slord at marelina.com (Simon Lord) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:24:46 -0500 Subject: [geeklog-modules] Forms module feedback still needed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well, I read everything and I think I mostly understood everything. It definitely has more detail than I was asking for so for my part this proposal is perfect since it describes everything I need and more. Thus I'm very quiet on the issue... :^) I love it. It's perfect. On Monday, December 30, 2002, at 04:15 PM, Tony Bibbs wrote: > Other than Blaine, I haven't recieved any feedback (/me looks at > knuckles). This is just a friendly reminder to send any feedback in. > > --Tony > > _______________________________________________ > geeklog-modules mailing list > geeklog-modules at lists.geeklog.net > http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-modules > > Sincerely, Simon From dirk at haun-online.de Mon Dec 30 18:37:15 2002 From: dirk at haun-online.de (Dirk Haun) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 00:37:15 +0100 Subject: [geeklog-modules] Returning entries for the Admin menu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20021230233715.10058@smtp.haun-online.de> Tony Bibbs wrote: >Actually, unless you object Dirk, maybe it would be easier just to give >Tom CVS access. No objections at all. I just wanted to point out the issues that are important to me. bye, Dirk -- http://www.haun-online.de/ http://www.haun.info/ From tomw at pigstye.net Mon Dec 30 18:39:45 2002 From: tomw at pigstye.net (Tom Willett) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 23:39:45 +0000 Subject: [geeklog-modules] Returning entries for the Admin menu In-Reply-To: References: <20021230225754.1136@smtp.haun-online.de> Message-ID: <20021230233945.M7872@pigstye.net> Well we are most of the way there already, when I modified staticpages to go with 1.3.6, I took the newest index.php from cvs at the time and merged them for exactly the reasons you state. I will see if I can put together a version (without the search) and with permissions and php. Don't get excited about it happening soon though -- I have a lot to do in the next few weeks and am putting in as much overtime as my old body can stand. Oh well - - work means money. Tom On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:04:24 -0600 (CST), Tony Bibbs wrote > Actually, unless you object Dirk, maybe it would be easier just to give > Tom CVS access. I've seen enough of his code to feel comfortable with > that if you do. > > Tom, Dirk has a point on the version used. One big problem was for a long > time the CVS version didn't use the $_TABLES[] stuff which made for > support problems (it has since been fixed). I believe the CVS version is > ready for your additions to be merged now if you want to do it. > > Having these changes in will help tremendously, thanks for working > together on this. > > --Tony > > On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Dirk Haun wrote: > > > Tom Willett wrote: > > > > >Fine with me -- the two major functionallities that I see used are the > > >ability to use php and being privs aware. > > > > Yep, I really would like to see the permissions added to static pages. > > Personally, I don't need the PHP support, but since many people seem to > > ask for that, why not. > > > > > > >I am not sure the expanded search is ever used > > > > I didn't even know there was such a thing in your version ;-) > > > > > > >Tell me what you would like for me to do along these lines and I will do > > >it. Or you can just raid the cvs and incorporate what you want. > > > > My main concern is that there are some subtle differences between the two > > versions (or at least I assume there are). I don't remember the exact > > circumstances, but when Phill announced that he was going to extend the > > plugin to support PHP, I asked him to use not the version from the > > Geeklog version that was out back then, but use the version from CVS > > instead. Unfortunately, he didn't do that and at least his versions have > > always had some minor differences since then. Things like valid HTML and > > the ability to wrap static pages in a block. > > > > That's what held me back from just grabbing the extended version and > > throwing it into CVS. I've always wanted to merge the two versions again > > but never found the time (and doubt that I will now). > > > > So if you're into painstakingly comparing the two versions line by line > > to figure out what those differences are (if any), then please feel free > > to do so ;-) Looking at the CVS history of the files should give you an > > idea of what I'm talking about. > > > > Then there's the issue of the install script. We need to extend Geeklog's > > install script to safely(!) upgrade from any version of the plugin that > > the user may have installed. I've come across reports where the upgrade > > process failed for the extended version and the plugin was reported as > > being "locked" because of that. Apparently, people had some problems > > recovering from that state. It must be avoided that this happens when > > people run Geeklog's install script. > > > > To summarize: I want the permissions, I would accept the PHP support, and > > I don't care about the extended search. If you think you can provide us > > with a version that has these and still has the changes that were made in > > the original plugin, then please do that. We would happily accept such a > > version as the new official version and ship it with Geeklog. > > > > Of course, I would be available for any help you would need with this > > (especially, I assume, with the install script). > > > > bye, Dirk > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > geeklog-modules mailing list > geeklog-modules at lists.geeklog.net > http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-modules -- Tom Willett tomw at pigstye.net From dirk at haun-online.de Tue Dec 31 06:24:19 2002 From: dirk at haun-online.de (Dirk Haun) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:24:19 +0100 Subject: [geeklog-modules] Returning icon for moderation.php Message-ID: <20021231112419.18665@smtp.haun-online.de> Here's a similar issue to the one about the entry for the Admin menu (see yesterdays posts): Plugins should check for the proper access rights before returning an entry and icon for moderation.php from plugin_cclabel_. For example, for the default Moderator account, I see icons for the Forum, the Chatterblock, and for my very own Classifads plugin even though the Moderator does not have Admin access to those plugins. Actually, the change in the plugin API that allows a plugin to return an empty entry from plugin_cclabel_ was only introduced in Geeklog 1.3.7, so I'd like to point it out to you here: --- snip (from docs/history) --- - Plugins can now return "false" (or an empty array) from plugin_cclabel_ so that the plugin's icon does not show up in moderation.php if the user does not have the proper access rights for the plugin. Changed the Static Pages plugin to do exactly that. --- snip --- bye, Dirk -- http://www.haun-online.de/ http://www.haun.info/ From tomw at pigstye.net Tue Dec 31 08:08:27 2002 From: tomw at pigstye.net (Tom Willett) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:08:27 +0000 Subject: [geeklog-modules] Returning icon for moderation.php In-Reply-To: <20021231112419.18665@smtp.haun-online.de> References: <20021231112419.18665@smtp.haun-online.de> Message-ID: <20021231130827.M86079@pigstye.net> StaticPages 1.2 fixed it. Menu 1.2 fixed it. Menu 1.61 fixed it. External Pages Fixed it. Universal Plugin Fixed it. Visitor Stats Fixed it. Contacts Fixed it. There goes my geeklog programing for the day. On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:24:19 +0100, Dirk Haun wrote > Here's a similar issue to the one about the entry for the Admin menu (see > yesterdays posts): > > Plugins should check for the proper access rights before returning an > entry and icon for moderation.php from plugin_cclabel_. > > For example, for the default Moderator account, I see icons for the > Forum, the Chatterblock, and for my very own Classifads plugin even > though the Moderator does not have Admin access to those plugins. > > Actually, the change in the plugin API that allows a plugin to return an > empty entry from plugin_cclabel_ was only introduced in > Geeklog 1.3.7, so I'd like to point it out to you here: > > --- snip (from docs/history) --- > - Plugins can now return "false" (or an empty array) from > plugin_cclabel_ so that the plugin's icon does not show up > in moderation.php if the user does not have the proper access rights for the > plugin. Changed the Static Pages plugin to do exactly that. > --- snip --- > > bye, Dirk > > -- > http://www.haun-online.de/ > http://www.haun.info/ > > _______________________________________________ > geeklog-modules mailing list > geeklog-modules at lists.geeklog.net > http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-modules -- Tom Willett tomw at pigstye.net