Jump to content

Community

Colonel_mortis

+Clients
  • Content Count

    1,356
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Colonel_mortis last won the day on November 28 2020

Colonel_mortis had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About Colonel_mortis

  • Rank
    Community Regular

IPS Marketplace

  • Resources Contributor
    Total file submissions: 3

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    localhost
  • Interests
    Breaking things
    Making the devs pull their hair out

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @Colonel_mortis - feel free to step in if I am getting the wrong end of the stick here. Exactly But quotes that are replies to other members get discarded. The first thing that comes to mind is changing the overall look of quotes like the one above, essentially offering two types of quotes: A reply to someone An actual quote Maybe the #2. looks like: Am I finally understanding it lolol? Yeah, some sort of styling difference between the quote types might make sense. I think I'd want som
  2. Nice suggestion, @Colonel_mortis Do you have any visual examples handy by chance? Something like this? I was just thinking they should look something like this ^ (but only with manually added quotes, not "real" quotes as in this example). Having pull quotes like in your example is also an interesting idea, and one that I could maybe see some sites using, although my use case is people quoting news articles, for which I don't think that would be super useful.
  3. If I have a manually added quote (ie a quote added using the quote button rather than by quoting another post), it is often a relevant part of the actual post (especially when it's in the first post in a topic), so it would make sense for those quotes to remain as nested quotes when that post is quoted (especially now long quotes are truncated). It wouldn't be too hard to achieve - just look for the attribution attributes on the quote before stripping it.
  4. Another one I've just run into - \IPS\Content\Comment::contentImages calls $item->container() indiscriminately, which results in a bad method call exception. This can be triggered when viewing an activity stream RSS feed.
  5. When an ips.ui.editor instance is destroyed, you are following the answer from a Stack Overflow question and trying to manually destroy the CKE instance. Unfortunately, that manual destruction is not sufficient, and is leaving references to the editor and behaviour. Take ipsautosave as an example (and maybe the only example, I've not looked further) - it maintains a reference to `editor`, and runs autosave on it every two seconds. It attaches a `destroy` event handler, which would be triggered when calling editor.destroy(), to cancel the timeout and therefore release the editor reference, but
  6. Ugh it's the patch from ticket #70349 again. Looking at the patch again it doesn't seem to break either of the things that I've run into, so it seems I somehow managed to misapply it (my linux git doesn't like that patch file at all, it's missing the a/ and b/ prefixes). Apologies for wasting your time twice for that.
  7. If you've not discovered it yet, I'm also getting TypeError: array_merge(): Argument #2 must be of type array, null given (0) in \IPS\forums\Forum::formatFormValues:1120 (neither $whereString nor $whereParams are defined as far as I and my IDE can tell, and $where seems to be unused). Also there are a few places where you have new\DateInterval( which seems to now be lexed as calling the function DateInterval in the namespace new, rather than applying the new operator to the root-namespace class DateInterval [1].
  8. How about doing patch releases on a regular schedule, such as on the first Tuesday of each month? That way, people can predict and plan for the work that will be needed (which for patch releases, with no new features or breaking changes, should be pretty minimal), and we get a reasonable cadence of bug fixes. Features should be released in minor releases (4.6 etc). Personally, I would be happy to see more frequent but smaller feature releases, say every 6 months with a couple of changes each time, as long as the scope of a release is fairly clear (ie. there are no breaks in a patch releas
  9. I've only been playing around with it IN_DEV so far, but I'm not noticing a difference. I don't think the JIT compiler is expected to make too much difference for web apps, but I would love to be wrong there.
  10. PHP 8.0.0 has been released. Some bugs that I've found in a couple of minutes of testing: There are a bunch of deprecation warnings for required parameters following optional parameters - from my search with the regex function\s*\w+\s*\([^=)]*=[^)]*,\s*\$[^,)=]*[,)] there are 47 instances of this in the suite. It should be safe to remove all of the offending default parameters, since they can never be utilised. The cms lang key can_edit_item_message_record is invalid - it contains %S rather than %s, which causes the page to (randomly?) 500. Fatal error: Cannot make stati
  11. It's also redundant when referring to a post within a topic - the title is displayed twice, with different formatting each time.
  12. Of the 147 members who were classified as 4 but not FASed, about 30 are likely spam accounts (based on manual classification by one of my moderators), which gives a precision of 61% (39% false positive rate) when classifying based on a score of 4. I'd be happy to share some more detailed data with you if there's anything that you think would be helpful - feel free to reach out by ticket/email/PM(/slack), whatever is easiest.
  13. Actually, looking further into the members who were caught by the spam service but weren't flagged as spammers, there are several who have made 0 posts (and thus weren't caught in my previous audit) but who are likely to be actual spammers based on their profile information. Based on the sample that I checked, the false positive rate is still too high to be useful, but it is not as high as I had originally thought.
  14. I run a large site, so I have a lot of legitimate members and receive a fairly significant number of spammers. I turned it off (but continued to collect members' spam scores) several months ago, due to the volume of requests by legitimate people who were being caught by the spam filter. I've run some statistics based on registrations over the past month, comparing whether they have been flagged as spammer (which is very closely correlated with whether they were actually a spammer (this may not be true - see my post later in the topic)) and the code that the IPS spam service gave. The results a
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use technologies, such as cookies, to customise content and advertising, to provide social media features and to analyse traffic to the site. We also share information about your use of our site with our trusted social media, advertising and analytics partners. See more about cookies and our Privacy Policy