maiki

That’s great news, and you can be sure that I will pick up many of the add-ons, because otherwise the software is pretty cool. ^_^

I am not too functional with PHP, but one way I realized I could accomplish this is with two fields, say autocompleted related fields, where the first one is the possible review locations, and the second are the accomplished locations. Then, I can compare the two arrays of results on the output, and show the results in both fields as completed (on the todo list), and the fields in the first but the second as not completed (on the todo list).

But it would be easier if I could just create two fields, and have the second field only show the results from the first field, obviously.

Well, in the first post I said:

We can avoid front-end editing, since that is abscracted, and I don’t actually care.

I am not concerned about the front-end process, because this isn’t for other folks, just me.

I’ve built dozens of CPTs, with various field combos to emulate what I am trying to do, but I don’t know how to mark the related field’s results as “done”. In my initial description, I tried to explain what others in the forms call populating one field with the results of another, which is apparently not something Pods does via advanced field settings.

You wrote:

Would you consider Books to be a 1-M relationship to Reviews? ie, you can only have ONE book, but you can have MULTIPLE Reviews for that one Book and the Reviews are really tagged by WHERE you’re publishing the Review, right?

I don’t really understand what you mean. Books and reviews would have a many-to-many relationship. I am not sure why you emphasized the words “multiple” and “where” with caps.

I can have a field that is a list of checkboxes for related fields, but that isn’t useful to me, because it shows all the posts. What I want is a list of checkboxes for a subset of posts, which are already related, because then it is useful as a todo list.

If have 50 review locations, I don’t want to have a list of 50 checkboxes. For a book, I may only want to write two reviews. So first I choose which review locations (2 of them), and then my review checklist will only have those two options to be checked. Hence, restricting one field by the choices in another.

This has nothing to do with the front end, except it is possible to rewrite the output to get the results I am talking about, according to a couple of cases in the pods.io fora.

A possible front-end solution would be to remove a relationship in one field and add it to another in one process.

Poking around on the pods.io fora, I think what I am looking for in the original post is the ability to dynamically populate one relationship field with the options in another, and from the responses there, it doesn’t seem possible. Ideally, I could use a Customized WHERE statement that would limit the results to the choices in the other field.

Looking forward to other ideas. ^_^

In case you weren’t aware, there are privacy and performance concerns with Jetpack. That is what Slim Jetpack is trying to address.

I used to be able to use your plugin on my self-hosted site, but now it is not self-hosted, because I can’t use it unless I am signed into WordPress.com, via Jetpack. I appreciate that you made this plugin in the first place, but to be clear, you’ve deprecated the self-hosted version.

I am gonna resolve this thread, though I never figured out what the issue was. I deployed from that repo to a non-WPE server, and it worked fine. And I provisioned a new WPE instance, and Pods worked fine there, but if I use WPE’s copy install feature, the new instance also has the issue. So something got messed up that is copied over, but I don’t have time to resolve it (we are going to deploy elsewhere).

Thanks for your assistance, Josh. ^_^

I spun up a Digital Ocean server and cloned the deployment repo, and the code editor is working. Next I will try spinning up another instance on WPEngine. Blah.

Sidenote (first!): I didn’t know the Frontier and Frontier Auto Template were two different plugins. That seems like it could be named differently, or the connection made more apparent in their respective docs. ^_^

I was hoping that was it, but neither of those worked. TwentyFourteen with/without Pods Frontier, still stripping my HTML out. Curly brackets are fine, though (I noticed in a different template).

There haven’t been any other reports of this, ne? Bummer, I always seem to get weird outlier issues. T_T

Any other thoughts, Josh? If it is worth your time, I can create admin/SFTP accounts for ya. Right now I am going to reproduce the site elsewhere and see if that changes anything. If you’d like to play along at home, the deployment repo is at https://allthecod.es/westview-press/wp-deploy.

I run a little over a dozen multisite networks, all of which have Pods. Never any issues with upgrades. However, of the list of plugins you have, I only use Domain Mapping and SEO (Yoast). I once used Multisite Enhancements, but that plugin caused a lot of issues for me, so I stopped.

If I were debugging this, I would turn off everything that is non-essential, and try that. Although what ya really need to is to copy the site and database to a test instance, so you can really go nuts there (ie turn off all the other plugins).

I wanted to reproduce this issue with a more simpler example. I made a CPT with two fields, text_field and number_field. The Pods export is at https://bin.jpope.org/pecinobocu.tex (and the functions snippet I use to show the fields is at https://bin.jpope.org/pubicasiya.coffee). And for easy reference, the Pods template is at https://bin.jpope.org/suxemosama.xml.

I made a series of posts with the possible combinations, named appropriately:

• https://labs.interi.org/test/no-text-or-number/
• https://labs.interi.org/test/text-and-number/
• https://labs.interi.org/test/number-no-text/
• https://labs.interi.org/test/text-no-number/

Okay, as I would expect, on the two posts that do not have a number, neither of the conditionals should show. The first one doesn’t, but the second one does. If I remove the first one from the template, then the second conditional works as expected.

I hope this is simple enough that you can test it locally. I appreciate your suggestions and am not looking for free work, but this worked prior to the last update, and now I can’t get it to work. I don’t know enough PHP to determine if this is a bug or if I am doing something incorrectly.

I updated the conditionals to show if they don’t equal 0 (https://bin.jpope.org/rayixibubu.xml), but the original problem persists, subsequent conditionals don’t work. If I remove the first one, the second conditional works.

The var_dump example for https://moon.com/books/moon-new-england-biking/ is: string(13) "9781598800265" string(1) "0"

…

Okay, it occurred to me to put that in after the first set is loaded, and it then returns: array(1) { [0]=> string(13) "9781598800265" } array(1) { [0]=> string(1) "0" }

Does that mean there isn’t a false or null being returned?

Thanks for replying.

I am not inclined to use ms-files.php, I was just wondering if there was a way to emulate it otherwise. I like having short file URLs.

I am guessing there isn’t any other method folks are using, so I will drop my query.

Thanks for the reply. That isn’t what I am looking for. I don’t want to change the upload path. I want to rewrite the path in the URL.

Using the method you posted, which is documented in the codex, changes the directory in the filesystem where the file is uploaded and saved. If I upload to a site that has the ID 6, and change the upload path to “files”, I get a file saved in a files directory in my WordPress root. Also, it still appends /sites/6 to the URL.

So, uploading abc.jpg is served at example.com/files/sites/6/abc.jpg.

What I want is for the URL to be example.com/files/abc.jpg, regardless of where the file lives in the filesystem (the default is fine with me). This is how the files are served from my current sites on a pre-3.5 instance, and I like it. However, it makes use of ms-files.php and .htaccess rewrite rules. I am looking for a similar set of rules, for either network-wide rewriting, or for individual sites.

Does that make more sense?

Thanks for looking at it for me. Pasted at https://bin.jpope.org/siyutelubu.xml.