Jump to content

Bring Back Attachments Custom Field Type to Pages


sobrenome
 Share

Recommended Posts

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!!!

Edited by sobrenome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :unsure:

Uploads
Can upload files?
Can delete attachments?

 

 

Edited by chilihead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

 

Edited by Ali Majrashi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

Edited by Marcher Technologies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Ford

Image of Ford (single file upload)

Review

Image of engine (single file upload)

Review of engine

Image of interior (single file upload)

Review of interior

Score

 

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.

 

Edited by chilihead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Ford

Image of Ford (single file upload)

Review

Image of engine (single file upload)

Review of engine

Image of interior (single file upload)

Review of interior

Score

 

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/dFvhj0kxr

It 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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Edited by chilihead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...