| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:01 |
Phally |
yeah, that is how it is now |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:01 |
alkemann |
but we cant have both i guess? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:01 |
alkemann |
get ur messages no matter what app ur using |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:01 |
alkemann |
if we are talking about the internal mail thing, i dont see a problem with that being part of the plugin and therefore shared between all |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:00 |
alkemann |
also a 'conversations' and 'users_plugin_conversations' |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:00 |
Phally |
alkemann: ah crap, haven't thought of that... messages are now for everything the same |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:58 |
alkemann |
Phally: should there be both a 'users_plugin_messages' and a bakery 'messages' table? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:36 |
alkemann |
having a little trouble starting on implementing the tests i have for the article and article pages model. need both user stuff and app flow design |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:10 |
Phally |
hehe i doubt there is |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:10 |
Phally |
you could do find('weird'); which does the extract in the model, but that will keep the extract |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:10 |
alkemann |
right, and where is the api for saying you want model.n :) |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:09 |
Phally |
find('all') will always give you n.model instead of hasmany model.n |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:09 |
alkemann |
well i assume cake is constructing this result behind the scenes, seems dumb to convert one way and then back instead of just stating how u want it |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:08 |
Phally |
yeah, don't think there is a way to flip the result that way without using extract or well, extract is the best option |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:08 |
alkemann |
to get behaviour |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:07 |
alkemann |
Phally: by manual i mean i ask for the associated model's datamyself instead of recursive or containable |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:06 |
alkemann |
Phally: kinda annoying doing either an array merge or a Set::extract to create the cake expected results |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:06 |
alkemann |
Phally: http://bin.cakephp.org/view/236643793 |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 05:27 |
alkemann |
hmm, yes... child could be a tutorial of the code article maybe? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 05:27 |
alkemann |
if I create a translated article (or for some other reason make a child article) should I be allowed to put my article in a different category than the parent? |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 13:34 |
Phally |
that's right |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 13:32 |
alkemann |
yea well 1.3 isnt done yet, but we shouldnt build incompatabilities into it |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 12:44 |
Phally |
alkemann: not yet, going to now, bakery branch 2.0, cake branch 1.3? |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 12:43 |
alkemann |
Phally: u pull my stuff? it pass on urs? u find ur fails? |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 08:09 |
alkemann |
ok. lets just let each article create it's own slug and leave this feature to the parent_id and lang fields |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 08:08 |
alkemann |
an important part is perhaps not to waste time one something that will very rarely if at all happen |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 08:08 |
alkemann |
well.. there are several aspects to it |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 08:05 |
ADmad|away |
in that case i dont think you should "fix" the chars... you can have utf chars in url cant you ? |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 08:04 |
Phally |
i think the slug should be translated with it, for SEO since the url then contain norwegian words then, you don't have to look out for duplicate content, since the language is in the url to, which makes the url different |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 07:56 |
alkemann |
you craete article "How I met Santa", the slug becomes "How-I-met-Santa", then I write a translated article of this, ie a "child article" as per our current spec, I translate the title to "Hvordan jeg møtte nissen", should my new article create a new slug, ie "Hvordan-jeg-moette-nissen" (notice fixing special character), or perhaps would it be better to create a url like "/nob/How-met-Santa" ? and what about articles that is not a tra |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 05:35 |
alkemann |
i thought calling create() would be good so as to not include model state from before in the test |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 05:35 |
alkemann |
ah calling Model->create() befure and update Save() resets the non included fields |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 05:33 |
alkemann |
yea something very weird going on. imma gonna try to debug around and see |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 05:28 |
Phally |
thats weird, does it remove the record? because usually counts don't lie or maybe it is the counterscope that doesn't match the edited record |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 05:25 |
alkemann |
ok. i edit a page and somehow it reduces the page count |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 05:24 |
Phally |
alkemann: well not now, i'm at work, but i can tonight |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 05:19 |
alkemann |
Phally: can u pull the 20 branch and tell me if you can see why the last test of the CounterCache test fails? |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 05:10 |
Phally |
also i will see that the deprecation errors will be removed |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 05:10 |
alkemann |
ok, thanks |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 05:09 |
Phally |
i'll think about it, let me see if i can come up with something |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 05:08 |
alkemann |
UserAppProfile , ie a model that is shared but reused differenlt by each app or a UserBakeryProfile and a UserBookProfile.. i dont know |