Pages Pre-release 3

[Matt]

I now installed the 4.0 beta and the Pages pre-release. There is indeed a dedicated “record image” field present. It’s just de-activated by default. I don’t know how it is utilized for upgrades and conversions at this point, but this is where your existing IP.Content and WordPress “teaser images” should go. 

It is however just a simple upload field. No settings. No thumbnails. Which is pretty baffling in 2014. If you open the article or the article list view (with potentially dozens of these article images), they are all loaded as full size hi-res images and then scaled down to something like 250px in the browser.  

​I'm going to add resizing options as I agree that it's silly to just dump a 5mb image in a record and call it 'done'. But yes, to answer the question above, there is indeed a dedicated 'record image' field. Or you can create your own upload fields too. It's really up to you.

[opentype]

​I'm going to add resizing options as I agree that it's silly to just dump a 5mb image in a record and call it 'done'. 

​

Good to here that.  Until now I check every image in every new database record created by a user and then, if necessary, manually edit the pictures in Photoshop and re-upload them again … 

Beside the obvious max-height and/or max-width settings it would also be nice to have fixed size/fixed aspect ratio option, just like you do it with the avatar images in 4.0. In some areas I might only want square images, but for example for book covers i might want to force a certain portrait mode aspect ratio and for video screenshots a 16:9 landscape ratio …

[m@t]

I'm working on the upgrade system still. There will be a way to upgrade your data (as much as possible) when we're into the beta stage with Pages.

It's worth noting, however, that because we've changed the PHP, CSS and Javascript frameworks in 4.0, certain things will not be upgradable, like blocks and templates as there's no programatic way we can convert the changes to the data. Pages and databases will be upgradable however.
 

​ok very good i have lot of pages normal created without database, classic articles and i need them all in 4.0

i use content more than forum

for me is important that pages has minimum the Same features as content 

[jhutch]

​ok very good i have lot of pages normal created without database, classic articles and i need them all in 4.0

i use content more than forum

for me is important that pages has minimum the Same features as content 

​Same ^^^

[D-rA]

Can anybody verify:
If you create an article titled in Cyrillic - will it be published normal?

Here is an example title in Cyrillic: Тестова статия

Thanks!

[Ilya Hoilik]

Can anybody verify:
If you create an article titled in Cyrillic - will it be published normal?

Here is an example title in Cyrillic: Тестова статия

Thanks!

I got a loop redirect. But I'm using nginx without force rewrite. After enable Force Friendly URLs it's fixed. Are you using Apache?

[D-rA]

 Are you using Apache?

​Yes

[D-rA]

PP. After activation of the Rewrite URLs no problem.

[Matt]

Refreshed the preview which includes lots of fixes and thumbnail generation/max dimension sizing for record images: https://www.invisionpower.com/clients/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=26

[mammut]

Is there also a beta 4 for the suite around the corner?

[opentype]

Refreshed the preview which includes lots of fixes and thumbnail generation/max dimension sizing for record images: https://www.invisionpower.com/clients/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=26

​How does one install a “refresh”. Just overwriting the files?

[Matt]

If you're running 4.0.0, then upload the files and run the upgrader. That might work. Generally though, previews are meant to be re-installed fresh.

[DReffects2]

i've just set up a 4.0 website with Pages. Just to check if I am not missing anything:

• Database Relationship field is gone?!
• Multiple Categories per Database Record not possible?
• Record Image behaviour not editable? (show in listing for example)

Thanks

[opentype]

 

• Database Relationship field is gone?!

At the moment yes. 

• Multiple Categories per Database Record not possible?

Not possible. 

• Record Image behaviour not editable? (show in listing for example)

​I don’t see it for that special image field, but basically the display of all your custom fields has been improved. You can pick existing labels and also provide some custom code for the output without editing the templates. See here:

So adding an image in the appropriate size to a list view is now actually very easy. 

[Flitterkill]

No problems with uninstalling, copying the new files over and then reinstalling.

And in response to the above, formally the multiple categories per record is not possible but that is mainly in how IPS treats the Pages DB concept. Nothing stopping you creating your own "categories" by using multiple checkbox fields. A bit clunky and more formatting and coding to get it going but doable in Pages.

[Meddysong]

This is looking ace - thanks for plugging away with it, Matt.

Presumably we'll have the option to have language-specific names for the menu items further down the line, will we?

[DReffects2]

No problems with uninstalling, copying the new files over and then reinstalling.

And in response to the above, formally the multiple categories per record is not possible but that is mainly in how IPS treats the Pages DB concept. Nothing stopping you creating your own "categories" by using multiple checkbox fields. A bit clunky and more formatting and coding to get it going but doable in Pages.

​Could you please elaborate on this?

About the DB-Relationship field that is missing: is this planned for the final release? It's the most important field type imo...

[Flitterkill]

It's really a db structure hack, and a clunky one at that.

Set up a radio field or a yes/no field. Give it a category name or whatever you want it to be. Rinse/repeat for all the other categories you want.

On record entry it would't be pretty though you could custom form it as well as one could, then people would yes/no on all of those "categories". I'd default to no and let them select yes for those applicable.

It's a kludge at best but would give you what you want. A poor-man's tagging system really. 

Is the tag system applied in Pages? I haven't looked that far yet. If it were... and you could lock a db to only a handful of pre-defined tags...that would do the same thing (better even).

On record selection and filtering for the above hacks you'd need to do some work, but again, it's doable for limited definitions of doable.

EXAMPLE:

Database of things consisting of shapes of squares, circles, and triangles. Equally important, these things are also either street signs, toys, or candy. You do not want to elevate either side as the category of record. That is you don't want the categories to be exclusively shapes or exclusively things. So...

Yes/no or radio check fields: square, circle, triangle, street sign, toys, candy. 

On record entry you would have to flip a switch to yes or check the radio field on each applicable ones of the above. So the record has more than one "category" now. More variables, more yes/no fields. In this particular example people entering the data could conceivably enter a thing such as green blue. Or circle triangle. Again, It's a kludge: might be fixable with some code, might just be the hack and live with it.

On filtering and display that's up to you and how you set up the block queries.

[DReffects2]

Thanks for explaining!
Phew that does not sound like the thing one want's to have with a large number of records and categories...

In my case, I am looking at a multi-depth category tree like this:

Kansas
  - Wichita
  - Overland Park
  - Kansas City
  - etc....

Florida
  - Orlando
  - Miami
  - Fort Lauderdale
  - etc...

Imagine that for the entire US with ~40 Cities per State.

Also the tag feed seems to be gone completely. While I really really like the new way pages work it's missing some really basic stuff. Does the term "Pre-Release" mean that it is not yet feature complete? If so, there's still hope.

Having tags is a nice addition to categories but if i cannot pull a tag list from a specific database and being able to filter that by category they are rather useless ;-)

[Flitterkill]

Kick this private so we don't pollute the thread anymore than it already is. PM sent.

EDIT: Actually no, I can't send you a PM for some reason... Says you aren't allowed to receive them.

[DReffects2]

dafug? When i hit 'messages' it told me that my message system was currently disabled. I've re-enabled it. Please send again

[opentype]

Thanks for explaining!
Phew that does not sound like the thing one want's to have with a large number of records and categories...

In my case, I am looking at a multi-depth category tree like this:

Kansas
  - Wichita
  - Overland Park
  - Kansas City
  - etc....

Florida
  - Orlando
  - Miami
  - Fort Lauderdale
  - etc...

​

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for multiple categories per record. The data structure in IP.Content/Pages is just not set up this way.

There are two general principles:

1. Categories and records are completely independent and just linked. Then you can have multiple links and it is possible to have several categories linking to the same record with the same URL. WordPress articles work like this. 
2. Records and categories work like files in folders. You can move a file to whatever folder you like, but there can only be just one “physical” original copy. The file can’t exist in several folders at once and there is only one path containing the full folder structure. Having duplicate content under different URLs (like category-1/record-123 and category-2/record-123) would be bad practice.

IP.Content/Pages databases work like option 2. GC-Flitterkill already mentioned a way around this: not having those “folders” at all, but to set the categories as field within the database. Another option is to use multiple databases. You could set up a database A which holds nothing but category names as “records”. Your second database B would hold the actual records. And from there you could cross-link every record to the category-records of database A. Then there would be no limitations of how much links you set. Your records would be accessible through as many “categories” as you like. 

[Matt]

If you have tagging enabled globally, then you can enable/disable tagging for Pages.

Relational fields will be included very soon. Multiple categories per record won't be though.

[DChiuch]

Relational fields will be included very soon.

​Will relational fields work with all 'content items', eg. forum topics, gallery images?

[Flitterkill]

When you say relational fields are being included soon is this for the 4.0 release or 4.1 or later?

If you have tagging enabled globally, then you can enable/disable tagging for Pages.

Relational fields will be included very soon. Multiple categories per record won't be though.

​