Jump to content

Gabriel Torres

Clients
  • Posts

    1,748
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Downloads

Release Notes

IPS4 Guides

IPS4 Developer Documentation

Invision Community Blog

Development Blog

Deprecation Tracker

Providers Directory

Forums

Events

Store

Gallery

Posts posted by Gabriel Torres

  1. promote_confirm_delete_desc

    Deleting will not remove the original content item, or remove it from externally shared services such as Twitter. It will be removed from the 'Our Picks' list.

    Mentions "Twitter". I believe the correct form would be:

    Deleting will not remove the original content item, or remove it from externally shared services such as Facebook and X. It will be removed from the 'Our Picks' list.

     

  2. site_twitter_id_desc

    The @username of the sites X account for use with <a href='{external.twitter-card}' target='_blank' rel='noopener'>X Cards</a>.

    I believe the correct form would be:

    The @username of the site's X account for use with <a href='{external.twitter-card}' target='_blank' rel='noopener'>X Cards</a>.

    promote_twitter_owned_by_user

    %s set up TX promotion

    I believe the correct form would be:

    %s set up X promotion

     

  3. Hi,

    One important addition to the platform would be to add support for gmail's feedback loop, so we could easily identify which emails are being marked as spam by our users. Currently, our email server is with a low reputation on Gmail's Postmaster Tools, as many users are marking our transactional emails as spam insteading of unsubscribing from the topics they are following, for example. It would be nice to see exactly the kind of emails that the users are marking as spam, so we can improve our server's reputation and deliverability.

    More info: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6254652

    Thanks.

  4. @Marc Stridgen Just a quick follow-up to this issue. I tried unarchiving the comment topic (Link #2) and the posts that were there are now gone (the original automated message and another comment), and only the new comment is was displayed:

    Could contain: File, Webpage, Page, Text

    Searching directly in the database, there were no other posts associated with topic_id 465934, either in the forums_posts and the archive_forums_posts tables.

    mysql> SELECT archive_id FROM forums_archive_posts WHERE archive_topic_id='465934';
    Empty set (0.00 sec)
    
    mysql> SELECT pid FROM forums_posts WHERE topic_id='465934';
    +---------+
    | pid     |
    +---------+
    | 8652322 |
    +---------+
    1 row in set (0.00 sec)

    (pid 8652322 is the new post)

    AFAIK the old posts were deleted with the unarchiving process.

    Note: I fixed this manually, but the comments are gone.

    Thanks.

  5. Hi,

    We have archiving enabled.

    We have an articles database where comments are set to be stored as a topic in a forum.

    Today, a user was able to create a new comment in an old article, where its comment topic was archived. Because the topic is archived, the new comment isn't displayed, but it is stored in the database.

    See:

    https://www.clubedohardware.com.br/noticias/energia/microsol-lança-no-break-ps800-r46573/

    https://www.clubedohardware.com.br/forums/topic/465934-microsol-lança-no-break-ps800/

    The comment/post is displayed at the user's profile activity stream:

    Could contain: File, Webpage, Text

     

    The post is shown in the latest post section from the forums list:

    Could contain: Page, Text

    Also note that in the article (first link above), no comments are displayed, even though there is one old comment available (see second link above).

    So I believe that there are two bugs here:

    1. It shouldn't be allowed to add a comment to an article if its comment topic is archived

    2. Comments made before the topic was archived should be displayed.

    Thanks.

  6. Hi,

    My suggestions is for you to to add a cleanup task to automatically delete "pending confirmation" (delete_account_validation) requests after a few days. IMHO these should be automatically deleted after 24 hours. Otherwise we will end up with the core_member_privacy_actions table full of unecessary data (a.k.a. garbage) after just a few months.

    Thanks,

    Gabe.

  7. @Nathan Explosion

    Our users are being able to bypass the minimum number of characters limitation by simply adding aditional spaces in their posts. It is amazing how instead of following the rules, people spend time thinking about how to break them. The solution would be to treat contiguous space characters as a single character. So, for example, 10 sequential space characters would be counted as a single one.

    I hope you can add this feature in a future release! 😁

    Cheers!

  8. @Miss_B Thanks!

    @Nathan Explosion Not the case. The table has five records. The notifications are simply showing blank.

    mysql> SELECT * FROM core_member_privacy_actions;
    +----+-----------+--------------+----------+---------------------------+----------------------------------+
    | id | member_id | request_date | approved | action                    | vkey                             |
    +----+-----------+--------------+----------+---------------------------+----------------------------------+
    |  4 |   1224358 |   1689211709 |        0 | delete_account_validation | c2648620b439e56e475e8c92e5d3a549 |
    |  6 |   1224437 |   1689353744 |        0 | delete_account_validation | ff173ab75d2c52433ac3879b18d3f7ba |
    |  7 |    954094 |   1689753250 |        0 | delete_account_validation | 8ef996a75c13f18214d8dc127b2b9c69 |
    |  8 |    666863 |   1689804867 |        0 | delete_account_validation | bfcb444869464a65169db10c86c9c90b |
    |  9 |   1152541 |   1689863595 |        0 | delete_account_validation | b3b9832a507a8bd6159e7870b81e3ff9 |
    +----+-----------+--------------+----------+---------------------------+----------------------------------+
    5 rows in set (0.00 sec)

    I will need help from the IPS staff here, thanks!

  9. Hi,

    The thumbImage template has two small issues IMHO that should be addressed.

    {{if $image}}
    	{{$image = ( $image instanceof \IPS\File ) ? (string) $image->url : $image;}}
    	{{if $url}}<a {{if $dataParam}}{$dataParam} {{endif}}href='{$url}' title='{lang="$lang" sprintf="$name"}'{{else}}<span{{endif}} {{if !$lazyLoad || !settings.lazy_load_enabled}}style='background-image: url( "{file="$image" extension="$extension"}" )'{{else}}data-background-src='{file="$image" extension="$extension"}'{{endif}} class='{$classes} ipsThumb ipsThumb_{$size} ipsThumb_bg'>
    		<img {{if $lazyLoad && settings.lazy_load_enabled}}src='{expression="\IPS\Text\Parser::blankImage()"}' data-{{endif}}src='{file="$image" extension="$extension"}' alt=''>
    	{{if $url}}</a>{{else}}</span>{{endif}}
    {{else}}
    	{{if $url}}<a {{if $dataParam}}{$dataParam} {{endif}}href='{$url}' title='{lang="$lang" sprintf="$name"}'{{else}}<span{{endif}} class='{$classes} ipsNoThumb ipsThumb ipsThumb_{$size}'>{{if $url}}</a>{{else}}</span>{{endif}}
    {{endif}} 

    1. The lazy loading scheme used is outdated, as it could simply use the loading="lazy" parameter, as it has been updated in other templates.

    2. The alt='' should be replaced with alt='{lang="$lang" sprintf="$name"}'

    Cheers!

  10. The numbering of posts could be replaced with a more prominent way of linking to that post. Most of users are not well versed in forums in general, so they don't know that they need to click on the "three dots" and then on "Share" to get a link to a post. I belive a small "link" icon there could facilitate users learning how to link to individual posts.

  11. Hi,

    I enabled topic/post archiving here, with the following parameters:

    • last post: more than 10 years
    • unpinned

    The system informs that there are 95.305 topics that match this condition, which represent 7% of our total topics.

    After several days, these posts were archived, but we ended up with several really old topics that weren't archived. The 95.305 number seemed off, since we are online 20+ years with over 1 million topics.

    Upon further investigating this, I found out that topics that contained the value '3' in the forums_topics.topic_archive_status columns weren't archived. I don't know what this value '3' represents. Maybe a flag for topics that shouldn't be archived? We used archiving several years ago, and disabled it, and maybe because of that all topics that were archived then got this status?

    Also, I see several new topics being created with this '3' value, mostly topics that are reserved for article comments in Pages. But not all.

    I just need this confirmation, so I can manually fix this!

    See below how we could actually archive 830,438 topics, and not only 95,305. The missing 735,133 topics have this '3' status:

    SELECT count(*) FROM forums_topics WHERE pinned='0' AND last_real_post < 1374439854;
    
    830438
    
    SELECT count(*) FROM forums_topics WHERE pinned='0' AND topic_archive_status = '1' AND last_real_post < 1374439854;
    
    95305
    
    SELECT count(*) FROM forums_topics WHERE pinned='0' AND topic_archive_status = '3' AND last_real_post < 1374439854;
    
    735133
                                                                                        

    Please advise.

    Cheers,

    Gabe.

  12. @Miss_B Many thanks for adding my suggestion to the app! I've just bought it!

    One small adjustment that needs to be done. You are using the core language string privacy_type (see sreenshot below). You should use a custom language string, this way we can translate this phrase more precisely, as we want to use a different text here compared to the other uses of privacy_type.

    Could contain: Page, Text

    Could contain: Text, Page

    Thank you in advance! 🙂

  13. Hi,

    Regarding the "Content I Posted In" (stream_title_5) stream:

    Create a topic with user A.

    Reply to this topic with user B.

    Go to the "Content I Posted In" with both users and you will see the topic listed in their stream correctly.

    Now, merge this topic into another topic.

    Go to the "Content I Posted In" with both users and now you will see that the content will be displayed only in user's A stream, but not in user's B. I believe this is a bug.

    Cheers.

×
×
  • Create New...