Daddy

I feel stock replies would be a much better feature if you could allow mods and admins to make their own instead of relying on them to be added in the ACP. You should keep the ACP portion to add global replies that are there by default, but a separate section (maybe in account settings) where our team can create their own that only they can see and use would be very helpful.
It would also add more personality to messages so not everyone is using the verbiage so it's not painfully obvious it's a canned response, which isn't a good look IMO.

I feel stock replies would be a much better feature if you could allow mods and admins to make their own instead of relying on them to be added in the ACP. You should keep the ACP portion to add global replies that are there by default, but a separate section (maybe in account settings) where our team can create their own that only they can see and use would be very helpful.
It would also add more personality to messages so not everyone is using the verbiage so it's not painfully obvious it's a canned response, which isn't a good look IMO.

I feel stock replies would be a much better feature if you could allow mods and admins to make their own instead of relying on them to be added in the ACP. You should keep the ACP portion to add global replies that are there by default, but a separate section (maybe in account settings) where our team can create their own that only they can see and use would be very helpful.
It would also add more personality to messages so not everyone is using the verbiage so it's not painfully obvious it's a canned response, which isn't a good look IMO.

I feel stock replies would be a much better feature if you could allow mods and admins to make their own instead of relying on them to be added in the ACP. You should keep the ACP portion to add global replies that are there by default, but a separate section (maybe in account settings) where our team can create their own that only they can see and use would be very helpful.
It would also add more personality to messages so not everyone is using the verbiage so it's not painfully obvious it's a canned response, which isn't a good look IMO.

/checkout and potentially /search should be disallowed by default. Seeing a lot of IndexNow requests for those pages. I've blocked it on my end but thought it could be useful to add to the default

/checkout and potentially /search should be disallowed by default. Seeing a lot of IndexNow requests for those pages. I've blocked it on my end but thought it could be useful to add to the default

/checkout and potentially /search should be disallowed by default. Seeing a lot of IndexNow requests for those pages. I've blocked it on my end but thought it could be useful to add to the default

/checkout and potentially /search should be disallowed by default. Seeing a lot of IndexNow requests for those pages. I've blocked it on my end but thought it could be useful to add to the default

/checkout and potentially /search should be disallowed by default. Seeing a lot of IndexNow requests for those pages. I've blocked it on my end but thought it could be useful to add to the default

You probably already did. Just comment the following line in the hook file:
$this->rowsTemplate = array( \IPS\Theme::i()->getTemplate( 'plugins', 'core', 'global' ), 'newCatLayout' );  

No worries, I‘m happy to help:) 
Zapier can be really tricky and one needs to invest some time to discover all the possibilities😅
That said, the initial issue from the OP was also located and fixed for an upcoming release.

Why wouldn't you be able to use it as webhook?
This is the Zap:
 
Which results in following request:

That said, you can also always use an extra step to remove the formatting via the Zapier formatter.

This cured my depression

Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention! I can confirm this should be further reviewed and I have logged an internal bug report for our development team to investigate and address as necessary, in a future maintenance release.
 

I set up a zap using "visible only" but it's still being called for all files regardless if it's approved or not.

I set up a zap using "visible only" but it's still being called for all files regardless if it's approved or not.

Problem is I think IPS knows that. That's why they're slowly making it more taxing to be self hosting to push you over. 

Still getting the same issue. Do I have to do anything special to get it to work?
Disregard. I found the steps when going to the restapi section now. All sorted

@Adriano Faria Thanks for that. I requested my review be taken down so I can post a revised one. 🙂

What's New in Version 1.0.4
Add a new field in Package form to make renewal optional Add "Feature File: " to the invoice "title" to differ from a standard file purchase

@Daddy, I’ll take a look in the request you’ve made via the review. 

@Marc Stridgen I suggest you do a brand new test install, and see if you can set up the REST API.
I had same issue after re-installing my test site, and ensuring I had friendly URLs enabled, and knew that (unless something has changed) I needed to place a htaccess file in the API folder. Problem is: there appears to be nowhere on the API section where I can download the file. So I grabbed the file from my live site, job sorted.

You have 27,256 active paying clients and only 15 staff (that we know of). Let's not pretend you're struggling here.
Just for fun... Let's assume all 27,256 (All clients who have renewed in the past 6 months) are paying the lowest possible, self hosted, forum license only. $80 a year / 12 equals $6.66 a month x 27,256 equals $181,524.96 a month and $2,178.299.52 a year before expenses. Enough to give 21 employees a 6 figure salary a year.
This of course is the lowest possible income for all current clients and assumes all of them only have a single license. I am pretty confident your income is twice, if not triple that.

Removing the ability for file authors to upload new versions while the file is pending is an awful solution to a very rare issue. This drastically changes how the application works, and will require websites like mine to completely re-invent the uploading process.
I wished we would have been given a heads up... Or at least some mention in the change notes. How can you change something so big and not even include it in the change notes? Something has to change here. You cannot expect websites to have to force users to re-submit the file entirely just to release a new update post-approval.