Jump to content

Michael

Clients
  • Posts

    23,640
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    114

 Content Type 

Downloads

Release Notes

IPS4 Guides

IPS4 Developer Documentation

Invision Community Blog

Development Blog

Deprecation Tracker

Providers Directory

Forums

Events

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by Michael

  1. One of the neat new features of IP.Board 3.0 was its integrated application/hook installer and upgrader. Using this took a lot of the headache out of updating modifications when the author produced a new version as you would have either needed to use a custom installer script or install a component dedicated to modification installations. This has helped out with the installations of modifications, but skins still install in essentially the same way, and there is nothing built in to the product to let you upgrade skins. Currently, when a new third party skin gets updated by its author, it can involve a lot of work for board owners who use that skin to upgrade the copy of it on their site. The old procedure was to import the new version of the skin, move everyone who was using the old version onto the new version, and delete the old version. If you had customized anything to do with that skin template prior to initially installing it, you'd have to keep track of what changes you had made so that you could apply them to the new version of the skin. It should go without saying, this procedure was clunky at best. Recently I stumbled across a post where this frustration was mentioned. This got me thinking about the issue. Surely there must be a way to upgrade a skin just like hooks and applications can be upgraded, right? Right now I'm developing some additional functionality in the Skin Import/Export feature in IP.Board 3.1 to take care of this. Essentially how it will work is this: when you import a skin set, the skin info is checked to see if a 'skin set key' has been set. If it has, it checks if this key matches the key of a skin you already have installed. If it does match, and you check a box indicating you want to try and upgrade, it will attempt to upgrade your existing skin. Any replacements/CSS/templates that this new skin XML has will be checked against the existing items from the old version of the skin to see if changes are needed. Thus far, I have it coded to show you the check box to indicate whether or not an upgrade will be attempted: I also have a lot of the back end work done where it will see if it needs to upgrade an existing item instead of just inserting a new version of the item. There's a lot of checking involved to be sure I'm not duplicating elements, so this will require a lot of testing. I've got a few bugs to work though on this, but it should be in place pretty soon. I think that this will be a feature that will be appreciated by a lot of folks. I welcome any feedback you may have. :) View full blog entry
  2. What about sites that might want media to work inside of quote tags, but not code tags?
  3. The problem with what you need is that there'd have to be a huge matrix of settings to handle that. Each bbcode would need it defined how it interacts with each other bbcode. For example, you'd need to define which bbcodes are parsed inside of code tags, which are parsed inside of quote tags, which are parsed inside of url tags, etc. And then since all bbcodes are custom bbcodes, and new ones like iframe could be added, each new bbcode would again need it defined how bbcodes inside of that work. It's a lot of stuff to check.
  4. Hello. Yes, this section is reserved for Feedback. If you're a Customer, you must login to the Forum using the *same* email address and password that you used when you purchased the software. Doing so will give you full access to the other sections. If you created your Forum account before purchase, then simply logout and log back in to synchronize your permissions. If you continue to have a problem, just send a regular Email to: accounts@invisionpower.com and they will be able to straighten out any issues. Thank you.
  5. Michael

    IP.Board ToS

    I would suggest you simply contact IPS directly either by submitting a ticket in your client center or using one of the other listed contact methods. For privacy reasons, IPS won't comment publicly about specific legal issues like this.
  6. Indeed, there was no reason to bump this topic back up.
  7. The only built-in workaround for this I can think of is turning the setting 'Prevent other codes parsing?' for the quote bbcode off, but that would stop all other bbcodes from being parsed inside of quote tags too.
  8. Michael

    IPB 2?

    You can download IP.Board 2.3.6 from your client center, but there's no way to downgrade an existing installation, you'd need to set up a new forum using that version instead.
  9. You don't sell individual licenses, you would sell the entire account with all of its associated licenses. Bear in mind, though, that this is not endorsed by IPS in any way, it's a transaction between the buyer and seller only, and it's up to the seller to remove any info like credit card numbers from the profile and provide login info to the buyer.
  10. You need to post in the peer-to-peer support forums or open a ticket in your client center for support, this forum is for feedback only.
  11. You're missing a </div> on the Today's Top Posters sidebar hook, it messes up the layout pretty badly if you are showing that hook. There's no tracker category for this skin on your site yet, hope you don't mind me reporting this here. :)
  12. Michael

    UCP Suggestions

    I like the fact that the UCP got some attention in IP.Board 3.x and has a new structure to it, but I too sometimes find it hard to locate the setting I need. Someone in the other topic mentioned a live search system similar to the ACP, I think that would be great. It's not like live-searching the whole board, there is a much smaller set of data that would need to be searched and that data set would only expand with the addition of new areas in the UCP through the installation of new apps/modules, not through simply having more posts/members on a site. This suggestion gets a +1 from me :)
  13. On those sites where resources would be an issue (ie. really busy ones), it doesn't make sense to show a block that would potentially have old cached data, you'd want real-time fresh results since it's going to change so often.
  14. Michael

    Cleancut?

    Are you sure you don't have that dot in other skins as well? And that you didn't accidentally add that in yourself? I don't see that on this site or on my own.
  15. No, I understand exactly what he means, and it's something IPS often does as well. But when literally hundreds of files change from one version to the next, producing an upgrade pack is a waste of time. When a new version only does change a few files, then expect to see small upgrade packs again. Seriously, how pressed are we all for time when the difference between spending 15 minutes uploading files and 5 is seen as that big of a deal?
  16. There were hundreds of changed files between 3.0.3 and 3.0.4, they did not release any upgrade pack. Just upload all of the 3.0.4 files and run the upgrade. It really shouldn't take any longer than 15 minutes to upload all of the 3.0.4 files.
  17. In 2.3, once you read a topic it didn't stay 'unread' until you marked the board as read, it was read at that point. I'm pretty sure the 'since last visit' option they added is the same as the 2.3 behavior, they added it because people wanted something similar to the 2.3 way of searching.
  18. The reason that wouldn't function is that your idea does nothing to check permissions. Exactly which posts do you propose should be stored in this table? Only posts that guests could see? Or that only registered members could see? Or all posts? As an admin I might want to see posts in any forum, but obviously I don't want posts in hidden forums shown to everyone. And if that table just stores 10 posts, but 3 of those are in admin/staff forums, then the block could only show the other 7 to everyone else. The block I threw together to test this is as resource friendly as it can get while still checking permissions, and it's too resource intensive for the board I had it tested on. While it may work for 95% of the boards out there, the other 5% make it something that can't be included in the base product.
  19. I agree, that doesn't make sense that pinned topics wouldn't be visible in this case. :)
  20. Each post has a Reply button on it, when members click that they will quote that post. If they don't want to quote the post, they need to either use the Fast Reply section at the bottom of the page, or click the Add Reply button at the top or bottom of the page. The View New Content page shows content that is 'new', or 'unread', not necessarily within a certain time limit. It sounds like the conversion from vBulletin made everything 'read', given enough time not actively reading content will make that search return more content. Note that there is also a Today's Active Topics link near the bottom of the board index page that relies on just a time limit, not the read/unread status.
  21. Then I'm not sure what you're suggesting, just block spammers with gmail addresses? Put folks with gmail addresses on moderator approval of posts?
  22. Just add *@gmail.com as an email address in your ban filters, it will make it so folks cannot register new accounts using a gmail.com email address, but won't affect existing members.
  23. They used to be used, now they just look at what URL was tied to your account to see if there is a question about the legitimacy of a certain forum.
  24. Michael

    IPB vs. vBulletin

    You are correct, there isn't a built-in way in IP.Board to set it so that a certain group of users (members using a certain permission mask, not necessarily a certain user group) can lock their own threads in a certain forum; the permission system does only let you set those six permissions you mentioned. But there is a reasoning for that: those are the permissions most likely to change on a mask-by-mask and forum-by-forum basis. There is a resource cost for storing permissions; the more permissions you need to be storing, loading, and checking, the more CPU and memory that is needed to load the page. Multiply that by the number of users hitting the pages where these permissions are checked and you could end up with a significant increase in resource usage. There has to be a balance between resource usage and features, which is why IP.Board only gives you these few options in the permissions matrix. I'm a bit surprised the vBulletin guys think this is such a weakness, this isn't something that very often gets a lot of attention from customers here saying that it needs any improvement.
×
×
  • Create New...