Feature Update....

Regular Joined: Apr 09, 2004 Posts: 87 Location: UK

That's good when you comapre to my iCGstation on 2.02 and came back with 500+ erros!

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:21 pm

You ´ll know the answer after you have corrected evry error.
DeepBlue had about 200 errors if I remember me correctly. Thats nothing special for a standard theme in standard Nuke. But RavenNuke is the better Nuke and the themes are all checked.

Site Admin/Owner Joined: Aug 27, 2002 Posts: 17088

Bad. v2.02.02 was using pretty much vanilla phpNuke v7.6 from good old phpnuke.org killing me

That's what we have attempted to correct in v2.10.00. The major benefit of standards compliance is speed/efficiency. One page had over 1,000 Notices and Warnings!

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:24 pm

We have corrected upwards of 10,000 Notices, Errors, and Warnings, not to mention fixing logic that has never worked as far back as 6.0!

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:39 pm

The 135 is about par for the course. What you need to realize is that, say you have 10 news articles on your home page. Well themeindex () is going to get called 10 times and any errors in there repeated over and over. So the total number of errors really doesn't matter. Humm, a better way to look at it would be to say "look at the leverage you have!" Just fix 10 errors in the function and you'll reduce the number of errors on the page by 100. Just go thru the code and take care of the things we've posted previously and you should be down to a manageable number of "issues".

And one other thing I was thinking about after I posted before. The nesting of table structures can drive you crazy and it's made worse by the fact that any module in Nuke or even the core programs can output part of a table structure and then "expect" that the theme will take care of closing it. Look at the message_box function in mainfile for instance.

registered · Worker Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 129

da*n.. you guys speak some next languages lol lol... anyway here reporting today on da look out for nuke!!

Quote:

"We have corrected upwards of 10,000 Notices, Errors, and Warnings, not to mention fixing logic that has never worked as far back as 6.0!"

s**t... thats some deeeeeep work... for real...

Quote:

And one other thing I was thinking about after I posted before. The nesting of table structures can drive you crazy and it's made worse by the fact that any module in Nuke or even the core programs can output part of a table structure and then "expect" that the theme will take care of closing it. Look at the message_box function in mainfile for instance.

I agree with that!

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:31 pm

PHP-nuke really is a pain to debug and work with when it comes to fixing things in it, one particular issue I have been seeing that is causing a lot of issues is the Javascript. In most of nuke you will find Javascript/php coding that has been left wide open when it was done. That is something that the new version has really improved on. 2.10.00 will be without a doubt the strongest, most efficient and complient nuke available. But if you look at all the work that has been done to bring it upto standard, I mean not anyone persons standard on the team. The code needed to be brought upto a basic browser/server efficient standard. 2.10.00 really does that. The original code was so left wide open that even if a module was coded properly to the point that stand alone it could not be hacked, with nuke, it could.

I think all in part, everyone out there who uses nuke should appreciate the effort put into this, as this cms will most definatley be more secure, functional and stand up when others will fail.

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:20 pm

Well, bring it on guys, quick! Very Happy

I'm using 7.3 on my main site and its way to much for me to upgrade with rwsNuke, prolly because I'm incompetent with such things BUT my second site is running/testing with 2.02 now. It'll be upgraded to 2.1 for sure ... and yes, all the work going into 2.1, if its as Darklord says, a donation is in order!

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:29 pm

You might want to look at this thread:

http://www.ravenphpscripts.com/postt12245.html

and run the utility that is mentioned there. To get from 7.3 to RN 2.10 you are going to need to upgrade your tables.

Caveats: 1. this utility is not finished and can't be absolutely finished until Raven says that the table structures for RN2.10 are finished. Even then it will take some testing to assure that it works absolutely correctly. But it should give you an early idea of what table changes are needed. and 2. DO NOT make any table changes until RN2.10 is released and you are sure you are going to upgrade immediately. Once you change the tables they probably won't work with 7.3 code anywmore.

I am sure that there will be extensive threads on this process once the product is out but you can get a head start, if you want, by looking at the results from this utility. Please post any problems back in the forums.

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:36 am

fkelly, this is outstanding news and I am absolutely keen to use it when you are ready (and raven says its ready). I am sick of patching phpNuke 7.3 and the rwsNuke is the only way forward.

The other many table changes (due to bbtonuke mods, other modules etc) I've made will also have to be looked at manually right?

Thanks!

fkelly wrote:

You might want to look at this thread:

http://www.ravenphpscripts.com/postt12245.html

and run the utility that is mentioned there. To get from 7.3 to RN 2.10 you are going to need to upgrade your tables.

Caveats: 1. this utility is not finished and can't be absolutely finished until Raven says that the table structures for RN2.10 are finished. Even then it will take some testing to assure that it works absolutely correctly. But it should give you an early idea of what table changes are needed. and 2. DO NOT make any table changes until RN2.10 is released and you are sure you are going to upgrade immediately. Once you change the tables they probably won't work with 7.3 code anywmore.

I am sure that there will be extensive threads on this process once the product is out but you can get a head start, if you want, by looking at the results from this utility. Please post any problems back in the forums.

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:42 am

Quote:

The other many table changes (due to bbtonuke mods, other modules etc) I've made will also have to be looked at manually right?

Most definitely. In fact, if you have done much with altering of table structures too, it may hinder you from using the "utility" completely. You may have alot of person comparisons to make on the files too, and that could prove "troublesome" given that many of the 2.10 files do not look anything like what they did prior do to all the clean-up we have done.

It was bound to happen at some point and finally Raven decided its time for doing the major surgery rather than still sitting back in Triage... And I am sure there are going to have to be many follow-up surgeries to finally rectify everything... or move away for good...

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:17 am

Montego wrote:

And I am sure there are going to have to be many follow-up surgeries to finally rectify everything... or move away for good...

The journey has begun Wink

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:07 am

The utility takes the RN tables structures and outputs it to a "flat" file then compares (there's two steps and I give you the program that creates the flat file but unless you have access to the RN2.10 tables you can't run that on them (though you could against any other reference set of tables)) them to your tables. So no matter what changes you've made the changes (or differences) from RN2.10 should be shown. At this point the "reference" flat file is about 2 weeks old and I won't recreate it till Raven says the tables for 2.10 are final. But it still will be indicative of the differences between 2.10 and your tables. We are trying to develop an upgrade script that will take care of many of the upgrades from 2.02 to 2.10 table-wise but you will have changes that are outside the scope of that and which you will need to deal with thru PHPmyadmin and/or plain vanilla SQL. That's why I recommended trying the utility now, you could get a head start: but just don't go changing ANY TABLE until the release is done and the final version of the utility is out.

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:31 pm

montego wrote:

Most definitely. In fact, if you have done much with altering of table structures too, it may hinder you from using the "utility" completely. You may have alot of person comparisons to make on the files too, and that could prove "troublesome" given that many of the 2.10 files do not look anything like what they did prior do to all the clean-up we have done.

It was bound to happen at some point and finally Raven decided its time for doing the major surgery rather than still sitting back in Triage...

Sounds like I have to go back to plan A then ... I was thinking that I could install 2.1 in a subdomain, take my time to transfer the db bit by bit and make sure at least some of the key functionalities work. When all is close enough to the original site, transfer it back up to root. Hmmm ... man, that's sounds combersome just typing it out! Rolling Eyes

Quote:

And I am sure there are going to have to be many follow-up surgeries to finally rectify everything... or move away for good...

No no! Not yet! We need you man! RavensScripts

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:35 pm

fkelly wrote:

The utility takes the RN tables structures and outputs it to a "flat" file then compares (there's two steps and I give you the program that creates the flat file but unless you have access to the RN2.10 tables you can't run that on them (though you could against any other reference set of tables)) them to your tables. So no matter what changes you've made the changes (or differences) from RN2.10 should be shown. At this point the "reference" flat file is about 2 weeks old and I won't recreate it till Raven says the tables for 2.10 are final. But it still will be indicative of the differences between 2.10 and your tables. We are trying to develop an upgrade script that will take care of many of the upgrades from 2.02 to 2.10 table-wise but you will have changes that are outside the scope of that and which you will need to deal with thru PHPmyadmin and/or plain vanilla SQL. That's why I recommended trying the utility now, you could get a head start: but just don't go changing ANY TABLE until the release is done and the final version of the utility is out.

Thanks, that explanation was crystal clear ... I'm going to the test site to download and try it now. Even just as a practise ...

Thanks very much again.

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:54 pm

mamma mia yikey yikes!!! Here are the results :-

tables processed: 111
fields processed: 803
fields not found on your system 18
tables not found in your system: 12

PLUS, 79 non-matches and/or missing columns! Crying or Very sad

Involved Joined: Apr 22, 2006 Posts: 356

just a question, for a non programmer but a dabbler, what would one have to do to correct addons that one plans on putting on a 10.0 site? Is there like a set of steps that has to be done to correct the code?

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:49 pm

If the addon runs on regular nuke v7.6 it should run on RN v2.10.

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:09 pm

Raven,
I think he is asking not IF they will work.....but how to correct them as was done with 2.10.

Excellent question BTW.....

It would be niffty if there was a script.....kind of like Nuke Tooks....that you plug in a script in the top box....hit process and it changes all the double quotes to single quotes....validates all the incoming and outgoing from the database....and the TON of other stuff ya'll did to 2.10.

It would also be cool if we started with a set of Mods and brought them up to the new "Standard" of 2.10. Just start one at a time.....fix them...release them.

Dawg

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:50 pm

Correct, I was asking how to correct them. What to do to clean up the code, make it compliant like the rest of the site.

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:26 pm

Kevin: there is (very unfortunately) no simple solution to this. Or at least not one that I know of. Take just one example: turning double quotes to single. You really need to go thru it line by line and even character by character. If there's a variable in the line that needs to be interpreted you need to stop the single quote and concatenate the variable and then start the single quote again. There are some lines where it may not make sense to convert. Likewise when you encounter double quotes ... there are cases where the original author would say, like bgcolor = ffffff and the ffffff should really be in double quotes. If the bgcolor is within a double quoted sequence then you need to escape them with a \ before the double quote. On the other hand you will find areas in the news module where we want to say quote: so and so said bla bla bla close quote. In that case we want to encode the quote with a & and quot and ; ... I am hoping this makes it thru our "fractured filtering".

In other words context is everything. And yes, brighter lights than I could probably write a parser or compiler which would get all this straight. Till they do we are stuck with converting and enhancing this stuff line by line.

And reading back, I realize I may have gone slightly off track from the add on question. The big thing with an add-on to make it compatible it to deal with any table structure changes. If the add-on, for instance, changes the users table then RN won't work. If the addon relies upon a changed users table and you use RN and it's table structure then the add on might not work. The only way to know is to try it an see; or post here about what the add on is and see if anyone else has beat their head against that wall.

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:50 pm

I've used 7.9 Nuke for almost a year now, and I have stared in pure amazement at the code and how truly awful it is. So many bad coding practices and half-baked ideas not carried all the way through. It really is a wonder it works as well as it does. When I read about you guys finally putting in the hard work to make this thing right, I just have to say I salute you all.

FB really took on more than he can handle. I don't know if he had people helping him or what. But he is clearly in over his head. If only he had done peer reviews or truly opened the source with an open CVS or Subversion repository and gotten some good help....

Anyway, I'm glad to read about the work you are doing and maybe I can help you someday. I will definitely be downloading the new version and looking at converting my site over to it. Good luck on the release.

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:45 pm

Gremmie,

Quote:

and maybe I can help you someday

sure hope you will too... Wink

It is still a mess in a lot of ways. It was a nice "hobby" to learn PHP/mySQL I think. FB just didn't take the time to come back and change things... this is assuming that he learned anything at all about good coding along the way... Sad

Even with all the work we have done, there is still so much more to do. For example, although we are striving for XHTML compliance in the non-admin pages, there are so many conditions to be tested that I cannot with confidence say that we are 100% compliant there even. You are right... so many things just would never have worked right, but either people didn't notice, or they just gave up and considered it WAD!

Worker Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 208 Location: Italy

Probably one of the most importat things to do is to get rid of thet double <html><head> <body> when looking at the forums.
I went down and dirty on my site, by removing all from the overallheader.tpl, making one CSS file for both nuke and phpbb and other amenities (there are hundreds of wrong nested tables) .. but i'm not a programmer, so i'm not sure that was the right approach.
And there is also a lot of work to do about search engine optimization as well....
for example, standard themes are a true nightmare for SEO....(If you check nuke with lynx textual browser, left and right blocks come before the main content ... Shocked

)
... it's a long way home.... Wink

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:20 am

Yeah I got rid of that double header thing too. Talk about embarassing!

montego, well at least I take hope in the fact that Raven appears to have assembled a top notch team...and even if you guys can't fix all of FB's mistakes you have the talent to start a new fork with a more coherent design.