XWEB BUG REPORT / Q&A

XWEB BUG REPORT / Q&A

Mac
Mac

April 27th, 2007, 5:05 pm #1

The idea popped up on a tangent of Rob's gorgeous X pics thread downstream and seemed a good topic to split off to a thread of its own. There are a number of known bugs / quirks / idiosynchracies of Xweb's forum code and not all of them are clearly documented, in fact, only a few are, the rest are enshrined in "tribal knowledge" but that means anyone who hasn't been here for long enough to have heard them described via word of mouth over the ages has to sort through them themselves, and not all are analyzed or clearly sorted out the same way, questions abound etc etc.

SOOooooo, Here is an open thread for all comers to post about "Xweb known bugs" or "Forum function question & answer". If you have any curiosities, ponderances, 'bug reports' or questions concerning the use of Xweb, please post them here and we will sort through and answer them as best we can!

I am also open to discuss 'feature request' ideas however that may be of limited value on the current forum software package, it's about as pimped out as we're going to get it, but, still don't hesitate to toss some idea out there if you think it is worth mentioning

The floor is open

Peace, -Mac
Quote

Joined: August 29th, 2005, 4:22 am

April 27th, 2007, 5:44 pm #2

One is real, the other imagined.

The real one is described in the other thread, but I'll repeat it here for clarity. I have found that if I log-in at a response page, the log-in doesn't fill in my identity fields. I have found that the solution is to log-in, then exit the response page to the forum, then re-respond to have the fields get filled in. Mac says this is how it works, but I think it's a flaw.

The imagined one is more a netiquette issue. I live in mega-slow dial-up land in the outskirts of Olympia (no DSL available, and no cable available) and basically cannot view videos and large-format pictures without dedicating way too much dial-up time to the task. As an example, the terrific photos taken at Wayne's recent gathering were not viewable at my end; after 30 mins. of downloading I could only see the top 1" of the first photo.

Another example: over on the B/S forum, many posts consist of nothing more than a video link. I would love to see us adopt a practice of actually describing the content of a post, as you would with a photo caption; a description, and an explanation of what exactly is funny about it. Without it, the B/S forum becomes a high bandwidth video clip forum, and while it's entertaining for those who can view it, it's overly exclusive and not of benefit to the forum except that it gives those posts somewhere besides the D/F to be.

As I write this I'm connecting at the breakneck speed of 16800 bps, due to the condition of the infrastructure in my area.

Gregory Smith

'87 Bertone X1/9 Corsa
Quote

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

April 27th, 2007, 6:32 pm #3

Hi Gregory,

I actually am glad you posted again your "name field" observations from the Rob thread because I just deleted my rambling off the cuff reply to you down there and wanted to rewrite it up here to make it more clear and accurate, and also to get off of Rob's thread I was not giving a fully accurate description below anyway so this will be better since I just went and tested it all again as a refresher!

I didn't really mean to say the name field behavior "isn't a bug", since one would assume it would load your name immediately upon login, and it doesn't, just that it's not a major bug because if you just take one of the simple actions outlined below, it then does function as you would expect for the whole rest of your login session...

Xweb's "YOUR NAME" field works like so:

If you have no valid cookie from a previous login session and you are not currently logged in then the "YOUR NAME" field will always be blank and you will always have to manually type a name in. Simple enough.

If you do log in with an account, you get a login cookie that has the "name" you entered in your N54 account preferences in it. Here's the actual bug part, this does NOT populate the post/reply "YOUR NAME" field immediately upon first page reload after receiving the cookie. It will, however, do so on every one thereafter as long as you still have that valid session cookie.

Utter Xweb name field happiness can be arrived at a variety of ways:

You can just log in using the link on the main forum index page instead of the one on the post/reply screen, then you will already have the login cookie with your name in it the first time you click into post/reply, OR...

You can log in on the post/reply screen and instead of posting immediately go back to the main forum section index page (this is what Gregory was doing) and then return to the post/reply screen, OR...

You can log in on the post/reply screen and just manually type your name into the blank reloaded field this one time only...

And from then on, for the rest of your session, in any of those cases, the "Your Name" field will always be preloaded with whatever the last value that was posted as "your name".

So in reality it's not a very big deal, as long as you understand how it is working, otherwise it can be somewhat confusing and just seem like a random event that sometimes your name loads and sometimes it doesn't.

Hopefully this clears things up for everyone? If further clarification is needed please ask!

Peace, -Mac
Quote

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

April 27th, 2007, 6:42 pm #4


If you ever want to know what "name" is stored in your login cookie at a given moment, just look at the top of the main forum section index page below the forum section navigation image links.

If you do not have a cookie (not logged in) Xweb will greet you "Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening GUEST"

If you do have a cookie (logged in now or previously) Xweb greets you by whatever name is in the cookie.

Of course the greeting is powered by script so if you have scripting turned off all you will see there is a nag message "Please enable browser JavaScript"

The other way of course is to just go to post/reply and see whether it sticks anything in the name field

Peace, -Mac
Quote

Mac
Mac

April 27th, 2007, 7:58 pm #5

Hi Gregory,

I actually am glad you posted again your "name field" observations from the Rob thread because I just deleted my rambling off the cuff reply to you down there and wanted to rewrite it up here to make it more clear and accurate, and also to get off of Rob's thread I was not giving a fully accurate description below anyway so this will be better since I just went and tested it all again as a refresher!

I didn't really mean to say the name field behavior "isn't a bug", since one would assume it would load your name immediately upon login, and it doesn't, just that it's not a major bug because if you just take one of the simple actions outlined below, it then does function as you would expect for the whole rest of your login session...

Xweb's "YOUR NAME" field works like so:

If you have no valid cookie from a previous login session and you are not currently logged in then the "YOUR NAME" field will always be blank and you will always have to manually type a name in. Simple enough.

If you do log in with an account, you get a login cookie that has the "name" you entered in your N54 account preferences in it. Here's the actual bug part, this does NOT populate the post/reply "YOUR NAME" field immediately upon first page reload after receiving the cookie. It will, however, do so on every one thereafter as long as you still have that valid session cookie.

Utter Xweb name field happiness can be arrived at a variety of ways:

You can just log in using the link on the main forum index page instead of the one on the post/reply screen, then you will already have the login cookie with your name in it the first time you click into post/reply, OR...

You can log in on the post/reply screen and instead of posting immediately go back to the main forum section index page (this is what Gregory was doing) and then return to the post/reply screen, OR...

You can log in on the post/reply screen and just manually type your name into the blank reloaded field this one time only...

And from then on, for the rest of your session, in any of those cases, the "Your Name" field will always be preloaded with whatever the last value that was posted as "your name".

So in reality it's not a very big deal, as long as you understand how it is working, otherwise it can be somewhat confusing and just seem like a random event that sometimes your name loads and sometimes it doesn't.

Hopefully this clears things up for everyone? If further clarification is needed please ask!

Peace, -Mac
If you are having nothing come up, please check to see you filled in the name blank on your N54 account preferences > profile:

https://secure.network54.com/My_Account ... it/Profile

Peace, -Mac
Quote

Mac
Mac

April 27th, 2007, 8:16 pm #6

The idea popped up on a tangent of Rob's gorgeous X pics thread downstream and seemed a good topic to split off to a thread of its own. There are a number of known bugs / quirks / idiosynchracies of Xweb's forum code and not all of them are clearly documented, in fact, only a few are, the rest are enshrined in "tribal knowledge" but that means anyone who hasn't been here for long enough to have heard them described via word of mouth over the ages has to sort through them themselves, and not all are analyzed or clearly sorted out the same way, questions abound etc etc.

SOOooooo, Here is an open thread for all comers to post about "Xweb known bugs" or "Forum function question & answer". If you have any curiosities, ponderances, 'bug reports' or questions concerning the use of Xweb, please post them here and we will sort through and answer them as best we can!

I am also open to discuss 'feature request' ideas however that may be of limited value on the current forum software package, it's about as pimped out as we're going to get it, but, still don't hesitate to toss some idea out there if you think it is worth mentioning

The floor is open

Peace, -Mac
This one should get top billing on any bug report thread...!

Because we enabled everyone with a login to have "edit post" rights, this allowed a situation to develop where it becomes possible for one to have the "automagic html link converter" to perform multiple times on the same post, one when you made it and again when you go to edit.

The glitch is that when you go to edit the urls you typed in originally don't show up as you originally typed them anymore, they now show as html code, thanks to the first convert action, but after editing, if you go to post again they will be converted twice and this completely breaks the code that was created in the first round! This is what has happened when you might see someone's post with a ton of screwed up links in it that don't work and tags the post has been edited.

Let me explain, no no there is too much, let me sum up:

Let's say you originally posted an url:
http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html

But when you arrive at the Edit screen, that is not what you get back, you now have the code that that created the first time which looks more like:
< a href="http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html" target="_blank">http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html&lt;; /a>< br />

Uh oh!! Well if you don't know any better, and just click on "Save" to recommit any changes, but leave that code as-is, then your post is going to get hosed, as the automagic tries A SECOND TIME to convert to code, and since the text now shows the URL more than once, well you can see where this is going... It's going to create some crap like:
< a href="< a href="http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html" target="_blank">http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html&lt;; /a>< br />< a href="http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html" target="_blank">http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html&lt;; /a>< /a>< br />

So this becomes a mess quickly, and completely hoses your post.

This issue ONLY effects SOME urls. Direct image urls are safe, but query image and web link urls are being double-converted.

So, what does this mean to you the user?

There are a couple of simple ways to work around this issue...

WHEN YOU EDIT A POST WITH URLS IN IT:

If you see ANY url converted to < img src=" code, you can safely ignore it.

If you see ANY url converted to < a href=" YOU MUST STRIP IT BACK TO JUST THE URL YOU ORIGINALLY POSTED.

Meaning turn this:
< a href="http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html" target="_blank">http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html&lt;; /a>< br/>

BACK into THIS:
http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html

...before you commit your changes with "Save", and voila, all will again be right with the world

OR, As an alternative to having to strip the whole code back to the originally posted url, you could simply remove JUST the "http://" that is BETWEEN the > and the < /a>

Meaning turn this:
< a href="http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html" target="_blank">http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html&lt;; /a>< br/>

Into THIS:
< a href="http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html" target="_blank">www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html< /a>< br/>

This is less work than the first method, as you only have to knock out the second http:// (as opposed to the whole tag) and then it will never try to double-convert that link again (as you even can see here by that section of the example not lighting up), no matter how many times you edit the post (whereas the original workaround must be redone every time), BUT it is IMPORTANT that you knock out ONLY the SECOND http:// - NOT the first one.

Feel free to post any questions or requests for clarification

Peace, -Mac
Quote

Mac
Mac

April 27th, 2007, 9:24 pm #7

One is real, the other imagined.

The real one is described in the other thread, but I'll repeat it here for clarity. I have found that if I log-in at a response page, the log-in doesn't fill in my identity fields. I have found that the solution is to log-in, then exit the response page to the forum, then re-respond to have the fields get filled in. Mac says this is how it works, but I think it's a flaw.

The imagined one is more a netiquette issue. I live in mega-slow dial-up land in the outskirts of Olympia (no DSL available, and no cable available) and basically cannot view videos and large-format pictures without dedicating way too much dial-up time to the task. As an example, the terrific photos taken at Wayne's recent gathering were not viewable at my end; after 30 mins. of downloading I could only see the top 1" of the first photo.

Another example: over on the B/S forum, many posts consist of nothing more than a video link. I would love to see us adopt a practice of actually describing the content of a post, as you would with a photo caption; a description, and an explanation of what exactly is funny about it. Without it, the B/S forum becomes a high bandwidth video clip forum, and while it's entertaining for those who can view it, it's overly exclusive and not of benefit to the forum except that it gives those posts somewhere besides the D/F to be.

As I write this I'm connecting at the breakneck speed of 16800 bps, due to the condition of the infrastructure in my area.

Gregory Smith

'87 Bertone X1/9 Corsa
The "BS Bug"?

I agree with you. I would like to see ALL posts/threads on Xweb in any forum section be more than just a link to a video or an article or whatnot and nothing else. Or if someone is posting broadband sized images in series maybe we should start encouraging the use of thumbnail links as opposed to embedding a huge series of full size images themselves?

Good fodder for discussion.... but there's really no feasable way to regulate the content of what people post short of going around reading everything and making everyone edit the posts that don't measure up to the "desired standards". Could you imagine anyone having to police BS?? LOL! Talk about "mission impossible" even the moderators are afraid to open half of those threads!

Peace, -Mac
Quote

Ian Lawson (NZ)
Ian Lawson (NZ)

April 27th, 2007, 11:15 pm #8

This one should get top billing on any bug report thread...!

Because we enabled everyone with a login to have "edit post" rights, this allowed a situation to develop where it becomes possible for one to have the "automagic html link converter" to perform multiple times on the same post, one when you made it and again when you go to edit.

The glitch is that when you go to edit the urls you typed in originally don't show up as you originally typed them anymore, they now show as html code, thanks to the first convert action, but after editing, if you go to post again they will be converted twice and this completely breaks the code that was created in the first round! This is what has happened when you might see someone's post with a ton of screwed up links in it that don't work and tags the post has been edited.

Let me explain, no no there is too much, let me sum up:

Let's say you originally posted an url:
http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html

But when you arrive at the Edit screen, that is not what you get back, you now have the code that that created the first time which looks more like:
< a href="http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html" target="_blank">http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html&lt;; /a>< br />

Uh oh!! Well if you don't know any better, and just click on "Save" to recommit any changes, but leave that code as-is, then your post is going to get hosed, as the automagic tries A SECOND TIME to convert to code, and since the text now shows the URL more than once, well you can see where this is going... It's going to create some crap like:
< a href="< a href="http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html" target="_blank">http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html&lt;; /a>< br />< a href="http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html" target="_blank">http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html&lt;; /a>< /a>< br />

So this becomes a mess quickly, and completely hoses your post.

This issue ONLY effects SOME urls. Direct image urls are safe, but query image and web link urls are being double-converted.

So, what does this mean to you the user?

There are a couple of simple ways to work around this issue...

WHEN YOU EDIT A POST WITH URLS IN IT:

If you see ANY url converted to < img src=" code, you can safely ignore it.

If you see ANY url converted to < a href=" YOU MUST STRIP IT BACK TO JUST THE URL YOU ORIGINALLY POSTED.

Meaning turn this:
< a href="http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html" target="_blank">http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html&lt;; /a>< br/>

BACK into THIS:
http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html

...before you commit your changes with "Save", and voila, all will again be right with the world

OR, As an alternative to having to strip the whole code back to the originally posted url, you could simply remove JUST the "http://" that is BETWEEN the > and the < /a>

Meaning turn this:
< a href="http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html" target="_blank">http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html&lt;; /a>< br/>

Into THIS:
< a href="http://www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html" target="_blank">www.anysiteurl.com/subdir/page.html< /a>< br/>

This is less work than the first method, as you only have to knock out the second http:// (as opposed to the whole tag) and then it will never try to double-convert that link again (as you even can see here by that section of the example not lighting up), no matter how many times you edit the post (whereas the original workaround must be redone every time), BUT it is IMPORTANT that you knock out ONLY the SECOND http:// - NOT the first one.

Feel free to post any questions or requests for clarification

Peace, -Mac
Hey mate, just what University of Psychotic Brain Disorder Surgery do I have to graduate from, to understand your above post!!!

With me being an elderly (now retired) Kiwi X-head (who still can't get his head around how to post pics on this beaut Forum - despite having been sent idiot-proof instructions on this ages ago by ol' mate Jim Decker), I reckon I'm doing well just being able to complete a "Reply" procedure!!!

As I'm also still on dial-up (our NZ Telecom are still objecting to a NZ Government edict to "unbundle" (sheeeit, what's that mean) their lines to enable more Kiwis to get Broadband, I fully agree with your, and Gregory's comment, about being unable to enjoy MOST of the links/pics that are now more frequently being posted on Xweb because of the download speed necessary.

Ah well, just a comment from another old fart!

cheers, Ian - NZ
Quote

Joined: August 29th, 2005, 4:22 am

April 28th, 2007, 12:26 am #9

The "BS Bug"?

I agree with you. I would like to see ALL posts/threads on Xweb in any forum section be more than just a link to a video or an article or whatnot and nothing else. Or if someone is posting broadband sized images in series maybe we should start encouraging the use of thumbnail links as opposed to embedding a huge series of full size images themselves?

Good fodder for discussion.... but there's really no feasable way to regulate the content of what people post short of going around reading everything and making everyone edit the posts that don't measure up to the "desired standards". Could you imagine anyone having to police BS?? LOL! Talk about "mission impossible" even the moderators are afraid to open half of those threads!

Peace, -Mac
In the end, there's no way to police the B/S forum for high bandwidth. I suppose it boils down to my occasionally whining about it, and hopefully a few folks helping me and other poor saps with dialup by including verbal descriptions and/or thumbnails. I can only hope!

When I use links to photobucket I check how it looks and try to keep the photos small, so that no left-right panning is needed. Photo bucket makes it easy, you can re-size images there to 75% or 50% with a click of the mouse.

We're stuck in the 20th century out here, the phone lines are sucky, there's no DSL yet, and the cable company wants around $5K to run cable to our place, since we're so far from the line and it would have to be a boosted signal service drop. One day I'll look into satellite, but really it's not worth it for us since we don't watch TV, just the occasional DVD/movie. It's our choice, our fault.
Quote

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 1:41 am

April 28th, 2007, 12:30 am #10

I know its a solution here in the rural parts of Canada at the same price as any other high-speed service

Richard Shaw
Ontario, Canada
82 x
Quote