Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
Scott Kingsley Clark
@sc0ttkclark
in terms of UI
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
I like the hover-highlight thing, though I think it could be a little more subtle. What else do you have in mind?
Scott Kingsley Clark
@sc0ttkclark
just threw that out there in case it was something we could reach into for the CMB2 refactor of the frontend
any plans for time on backbone / etc there for you? know anyone we could reach out to for additional help?
PG Lewis
@pglewis
the time is now for me to get onboard with backbone anyway, so within a week I'll be a fledgling resource there
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
based on your work so far, that's an encouraging aspect.
@sc0ttkclark my only thought is possibly @ericandrewlewis would be interested.
PG Lewis
@pglewis
my js is reasonably solid and backbone isn't a giant library thankfully
Scott Kingsley Clark
@sc0ttkclark
i'd like @pglewis and us to focus on the backend, there's much more to do on the pods implementation, so if we can get @jtsternberg and possibly @ericandrewlewis on the front, life would be much much better
Scott Kingsley Clark
@sc0ttkclark
eric doesn't really use CMB2, so may not be a great fit overall there
PG Lewis
@pglewis
@jtsternberg: this sort of thing will be needed some in the tests:
pods-framework/CMB2@949884
cggit
@cggit
im using a cmb2 textarea_code to store some JS but its converting & to & is there a quick way to prevent this?
PG Lewis
@pglewis
the straight array to array comparison breaks if new elements are introduced
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
'escape_cb' => false // to disable
@pglewis yah, that's fine
PG Lewis
@pglewis
I'll collect 'em all and submit a PR at the end of the rabbit hole here
cggit
@cggit
@jtsternberg with escape_cb false it still goes from the &.a.m.p.; to &
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
@gc
@cggit then you may also need: 'sanitization_cb' => false // to disable
cggit
@cggit
@jtsternberg thanks I had looked there but failed. Having both set to false didnt work but only having the saniatize_cb false did the trick
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
@pglewis ping
PG Lewis
@pglewis
acknowledged
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
re: https://github.com/WebDevStudios/CMB2/pull/449/files I think we should revamp to use the new fields/metabox API vs using the fields array
I can do that quick, but I wouldn't be able to verify that it works for the scenarios that you are testing against
PG Lewis
@pglewis
what does it change?
PG Lewis
@pglewis
not sure how/where it would be implemented or what it touches
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
no problem.. still thinking it through
PG Lewis
@pglewis
my current branch passes all but 3 tests as it stands with the same tests that I have on our trunk fork (the same as what's in the PR)
it's pretty far diverged from trunk otherwise, though, as you might guess
but my focus has been on passing existing tests first to validate back-compat that far
then test more with real metaboxes, which would likely precipitate new tests to bolster things again
but if another refactor is beneficial, I'll not let that deter me
I haven't ripped into CMB2_Field too much yet
most of it has been on the CMB2 class, but that's all-encompassing
PG Lewis
@pglewis
but definitely let me know what you're brainstorming, I can modify my course of action here to accommodate if needed
since you said "I can do that quick", I'd have to assume it's not a giant refactor. Either that or just a case of optimism ;)
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
Nevermind... the modifications to the tests are good
PG Lewis
@pglewis
I needed to give explicit field names to the data arrays, that's the one oddball thing
but it makes sense that it should be that way... creation of the field is going to name them by field ID and not the original indexes 0, 1, 2 when omitted
God knows it'll find the one guy out there relying on those index values upon release though
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
No, that's the way it should be. I'm actually working on a method that will convert fields arrays to using the add_field methods
PG Lewis
@pglewis
it'll still take field arrays without names, you just can't rely on those numeric indexes the way I've refactored... fields always get the name set on creation, and they're always created
but I wanna make sure I stay on the same page as you
if you're reworking add_field... well, obviously I'm hacking add_field too
in fact, all the nesting I built in the example was done exclusively via add_field
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
no, this is what I'm working on.. sounds like maybe a little overlap. Let me know: http://b.ustin.co/1bcue
PG Lewis
@pglewis
since fields can be groups now, I can call add_field on a field group, not just a metabox
I didn't use add_group_field once for the example in the screenshot