sobrenome Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 I am using IP.Content as CMS. And IP.Content is not the best in image handling.Following IPS tips, I have used a attachment type custom field in every database of my site to handle images.Now I want to upgrade to 4.0 and I realize the Pages does not accept attachment type as custom field.Please, bring it back urgently! I guess that most of IP.Content users have followed IPS suggestion to use attachment type custom field in articles and other databases to handle images and are now unable to upgrade to IPS 4.0 without losing all images related to database records.Thanks!!!
Draffi Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Now I want to upgrade to 4.0 and I realize the Pages does not accept attachment type as custom field. WHAT? There is no "Attachment-Field" ? Another reason, not to upgrade... (or another reason that a custom-coder can make money, only why IPB dont integrate the simplest functions...) Incredible...
chilihead Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 It is in the editor now, so it is the full editor unlike before where is was stripped of attachments unless you added the field. It gets the permission from Core >> Group >> Content.
chilihead Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Here's the difference. If you added them before it also added the permission. So they could be off globally and added in databases. Now, they are read from core.
Shariq Ansari Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 It is in the editor now, so it is the full editor unlike before where is was stripped of attachments unless you added the field. It gets the permission from Core >> Group >> Content.I don't understand - what if I don't want the editor, what if I just want a simple attachment field?This seems like core functionality that will break MANY existing IP.C databases on upgrade...
chilihead Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Very good point! So I looked again. It is there! It is called UPLOADS.
Marcher Technologies Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 http://community.invisionpower.com/4bugtrack/pages-upgrades-to-not-update-upload-and-attachment-fields-properly-r5242/I would advise anyone actually using attachments within content databases on 3.x to wait for that to be fixed before upgrading.
chilihead Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 It's still confusing, is "Uploads" Single File Uploads or Attachments? Because in 4.0 they are called Attachments are called Uploads globally. Except the delete permission which is called Attachments. UploadsCan upload files?Can delete attachments?
Marcher Technologies Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 http://screencast.com/t/dFvhj0kxrIt is both of them near as I can tell.... The upload field got a massive upgrade. It can handle either being a single-file upload field as was present in 3.x, or multi-file attachments.
sobrenome Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 So the custom database field type attachment will be upgraded to "uploads" field instead of a custom field type attachment?In the support ticket I was told that the attachment type would be added soon. No one told me about this upload approach.
Ali Majrashi Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 So the custom database field type attachment will be upgraded to "uploads" field instead of a custom field type attachment?In the support ticket I was told that the attachment type would be added soon. No one told me about this upload approach. this is an upgrade issue they will fix it soon by converting attachment fields into upload fields you can see it in the bug tracker http://community.invisionpower.com/4bugtrack/pages-upgrades-to-not-update-upload-and-attachment-fields-properly-r5242/
Marcher Technologies Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 So the custom database field type attachment will be upgraded to "uploads" field instead of a custom field type attachment?In the support ticket I was told that the attachment type would be added soon. No one told me about this upload approach.That is not actually something I can say for certain, I wouldn't wish to give any false impressions, I am not staff, such is not my decision.I just see no point to a dedicated 'attachments' field when the new upload field covers all the bases the 'attachments' field used to....
chilihead Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Hmm is seems the new way though, you can't restrict images. Single File Upload meant they could upload one. It is very important for me. My template looks like this:(Using cars as an example)FordImage of Ford (single file upload)ReviewImage of engine (single file upload)Review of engineImage of interior (single file upload)Review of interiorScore Can something like that still be done? So in that database they could upload 3 max.Also it had nothing to do with attachment permissions which was good.I hope we can still do this or Pages went downhill for organized images.
Marcher Technologies Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Hmm is seems the new way though, you can't restrict images. Single File Upload meant they could upload one. It is very important for me. My template looks like this:(Using cars as an example)FordImage of Ford (single file upload)ReviewImage of engine (single file upload)Review of engineImage of interior (single file upload)Review of interiorScore Can something like that still be done? So in that database they could upload 3 max.Also it had nothing to do with attachment permissions which was good.I hope we can still do this or Pages went downhill for organized images. http://screencast.com/t/dFvhj0kxrIt is both of them near as I can tell.... The upload field got a massive upgrade. It can handle either being a single-file upload field as was present in 3.x, or multi-file attachments.Please look at the screenshot. 'Allow Multiple Uploads' is an option, not a requirement. Yes you can still do that...
chilihead Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Fantastic!Thanks for the info and the time to look. I didn't think to look for that. That's cool.
sobrenome Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 I hope that 4.0.2 comes out soon with this correction...
chilihead Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 What I am still not understanding is, there is still the attachment function in the editor based on core permissions. So they can upload using the editor if you don't want them to? And where do the attachments go, since you layout the templates yourself with the fields? Are they hidden?
chilihead Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 What I am still not understanding is, there is still the attachment function in the editor based on core permissions. So they can upload using the editor if you don't want them to? And where do the attachments go, since you layout the templates yourself with the fields? Are they hidden? Would any staff be able to address this?
chilihead Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Since attachments is a custom field (Uploads) that handles single and multiple uploads and replaces "single file" and attachments, shouldn't the attachment field be removed from the editor like it was in IP.Content? Or else we have no control.I may be missing something. I'll ask @Lindy. Thanks!
chilihead Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Since attachments is a custom field (Uploads) that handles single and multiple uploads and replaces "single file" and attachments, shouldn't the attachment field be removed from the editor like it was in IP.Content? Or else we have no control.I may be missing something. I'll ask @Lindy. Thanks!Any input?
chilihead Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 So we lost control over number of images with attachments in the editor now? Clarification? Not speaking of the custom field.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.