Flarum 0.1.0-beta.14 Released

robinodds

Wadera PS. It's hard to quote when discussion is closed!

Quote

Wadera

Let's not start offtop here, but try to quote something from:
https://discuss.flarum.org/d/23667-dev-diary-beta-14/58

Then you understand what I mean 😉

robinodds

Wadera yeah, I just 'quote' your post to say: It's true!

Nimren

Currently, most extensions are not compatible with this version. I recommend Beta13 for now

010101

Maybe it’s like a placebo effect but my forum seems faster with beta 14. Of course, I currently have way less extensions than I had with beta 13. It’s actually quite amazing though. I’m on shared hosting and it loads pretty much as fast as the discuss forum here.

🤩

luceos

010101 we had the same impression. The frontend changes seemed to have positively impacted performance 🥳

vulcano

010101 Cool! How did you install it on a shared hosting?

tankerkiller125

MartinJD Because FoF is made of core devs they probably have a slight advantage over the average developer simply due to their knowledge of the core. However we strive to work with ALL extension developers closely and we will happily help developers get their extension ideas into actual code.

This is why we call extensions not "official" community extensions. To us they are an extension of our core product and as such we treat them like it. We value our community developers greatly and we thank each and everyone of them for their hard work and dedication to making to Flarum extensions.

010101

vulcano If you search this forum, you’ll find various tutorials. The short answer is, as long as the shared hosting provider is decent and offers SSH access, and ideally allows you to create folders one level below the public folder, you just follow the normal install instructions in the docs.

I also posted this a while back. I do not know if it’s still 100% accurate: https://discuss.flarum.org/d/19536-shared-hosting-installation-one-way

If you run into issues, just start a new support discussion and someone will probably help you troubleshoot. You need to at least know or learn some command line basics. Of course, I hear there’s other ways too even without SSH access. But, I don’t have any experience with those ways.

tankerkiller125

matteocontrini peopleinside You'll be happy to know we found the issue with the emails, it's a thing specific to discuss do to some email URL regex that we use to prevent getting marked as spam that was faulty. The regex has been fixed and is currently awaiting review before we publish the fix.

m4v3rick

I am using Edge/Firefox/Chrome (all on PC) for testing of the new version and if I scroll (mouse wheel) to the bottom it says post 14 of 16 although I can't scroll further. If I press on "Now" 16 of 16 is shown. If I use the scroll bar it's okay too.
Seems like the focus is on the first still visible post if scrolled with the mouse wheel.
Could this behaviour be changed somehow?

Pollux

m4v3rick Seems like the focus is on the first still visible post if scrolled with the mouse wheel.
Could this behaviour be changed somehow?

But how? If you would indicate the last visible post you would run into the equivalent problem when scrolling to the top. So you would have to switch between the two ways depending on the scroll direction.

One might consider indicating something like 14-16 of 16 at the bottom and 1-3 of 16 at the top (or however many posts are visible), but that would add noise for only little more clarity.

HavocK

datitisev Update worked fine. Keep it up !

clarkwinkelmann

Pollux in beta 13 it seems we did switch to showing the last number when at the bottom. We can see this on this very discussion.

A change in beta 14 must have changed the behavior and now only accounts for the top post. We re-wrote a lot of the scrubber, I'm not sure if that change was a required side-effect or if we just didn't notice.

m4v3rick

Pollux
clarkwinkelmann
Pollux
askvortsov

Thanks for the clarification. 🙂

Pollux

clarkwinkelmann in beta 13 it seems we did switch to showing the last number when at the bottom. We can see this on this very discussion.

True, and at the top number 1 is only shown if, like in this discussion, the first post is longer then the screen height.

But I agree, all in all the previous solution looked better.

askvortsov

clarkwinkelmann A change in beta 14 must have changed the behavior and now only accounts for the top post. We re-wrote a lot of the scrubber, I'm not sure if that change was a required side-effect or if we just didn't notice.

With the previous approach, when clicking on the scrubber to scroll to a different post, the number would glitch back and forth for a bit (you can see this here on Discuss). That's because if we scroll based on the index of the top displayed post, but show the index of the bottom post in the viewport, you get 2 different numbers. You'll get a problem either at the top or bottom of the page anyways, depending on which system you choose, and I don't think the new approach is significantly worse than the current approach. It's also consistent with what other forum systems use.

Pollux

askvortsov You'll get a problem either at the top or bottom of the page anyways

I have a seemingly crazy idea: Show the number of the post corresponding to the place where you are in a discussion. At the beginning of the discussion, display the number of the post that is at the top of the screen, at the end of the discussion, display the number of the post that is at the bottom of the screen, and in between, display the number of the post according to its position in the discussion. For example, around post 30 of 100 (30%) the number of the post is displayed that is 30% of the height of the screen from the top of the screen.

This way we get the expected display of the first and last post and still avoid unmotivated jumps in the display of the post number.

These are the little things that no one will notice immediately in the final product, but which make the product look rounder.

nexromant

Hello everyone After updating, I go to the site - "there Was an error updating the page" - and so on endlessly! What could be the problem?

https://ibb.co/VgrZ0ks

clarkwinkelmann

nexromant can you share the output of your php flarum info?

Do you see an extension name somewhere in the error backtrace? This error is probably caused by an extension that wasn't updated for beta 14 (the array_get function no longer exists in beta 14)

« Previous Page Next Page »