Re: Rules lost when approving draft page

Thanks Geoff - setting all buttons to a disabled state when clicked sounds
a very good idea and would certainly solve our current problem of the
Change Status button being pressed twice.
Sorry I think I confused things by referring to previous problems - I just
meant that we are now on version 6 in which similar problems have been
fixed, but that there is still an issue with rules disappearing in a
new situation.
We are not planning to change core to fix it so will contact you re
disabling buttons.
Annette


On 27 September 2012 02:57, Geoff Bowers <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 27 September 2012 00:59, Annette21 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > We have an html page that contains a lot of rules.
> > We also have very busy web administrators who occasionally click the
> Change
> > Status button twice in error when approving the page. (It is not obvious
> > that is has already been clicked).
> > This causes all the rules from the page to disappear. (We can replicate
> this
> > problem on our test system)
>
> A universal improvement I'd like to see in the system is for submit
> buttons to change to a disabled state onSubmit (to prevent double
> clicking) and for the button label to change (to give a clear
> indication to users that something is happening). For example, "Save"
> on click might change to disabled and read "Saving...".
>
> If RGU would be interested in working with us on such a change drop me a
> note.
>
> > We are running version 6 of Farcry in which fixes have been put in place
> to
> > prevent rules disappearing when pages are approved.
> >
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB&fromgroups#!searchin/farcry-dev/page$20version$20rules/farcry-dev/wszMJJjqrmo/SVAgkMzad5wJ
> >
> > Is there anything we can do to prevent this additional problem - or
> should I
> > request a further change to core to lock down the change status process
> to
> > prevent it starting again until it has finished?
>
> I would *strongly* recommend against "modding" core. Maintaining Core
> changes (or "fixes") on your server should be a very rare exception,
> and every effort should be made to get back in synch with the core
> code base.
>
> I believe the container issue that you describe is already addressed
> in the code base you are running. ie I think you are patching
> something that was fixed several versions ago.
>
> If your patch is an improvement on the existing framework, please
> submit the change to the community so that we can all share in the
> benefits and improve the code base overall.
>
> Core is specifically designed to be extended -- it's one of the
> platforms greatest strengths.  It is rare that developers should need
> to make a change directly in core than cannot be made in the project
> or a plugin that is separate to core. If you have such a scenario let
> us know what it is, and we'll see what can be done to improve the
> framework.
>
> All the best,
>
> -- geoff bowers
> Director
> Daemon Internet Consultants
> Sydney, Australia
> p. +612 8090 9386
> skype. gb.daemon
> w. http://www.daemon.com.au/
> e. [email protected]
>
> --
> You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" Google
> group.
> To post, email: farcry-dev-/[email protected]
> To unsubscribe, email: farcry-dev+unsubscribe-/[email protected]
> For more options: http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev
> --------------------------------
> Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/farcry
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" Google group.
To post, email: farcry-dev-/[email protected]
To unsubscribe, email: farcry-dev+unsubscribe-/[email protected]
For more options: http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev
--------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/farcry