Textpattern CMS support forum
You are not logged in. Register | Login | Help
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
RFC: links with no publish timestamp should have a blank field in list
Textpattern 4.9.0.
New links have a blank timestamp. If the date + time fields are left blank, the link list page shows ’01 Jan 1970 00:00’.
This feels unexpected UX-wise.
Proposal: if the date + time fields are left blank, there should be an empty Date field on the link list page:
If that looks a bit…weird…then perhaps a dash:
Offline
Re: RFC: links with no publish timestamp should have a blank field in list
Hmmm, that feels buggy and probably related to the date expansion to any AD date.
Does it also break in the files, images and articles (e.g. expiry) column? Maybe comments too? I seem to recall if you empty out a file/image date that it used to get recreated with ‘now’ but then we added the Reset time to now checkbox so maybe it doesn’t do that any more, unless instructed.
The smd plugin menagerie — for when you need one more gribble of power from Textpattern. Bleeding-edge code available on GitHub.
Hire Txp Builders – finely-crafted code, design and Txp
Offline
Re: RFC: links with no publish timestamp should have a blank field in list
Bloke wrote #342434:
Does it also break in the files, images and articles (e.g. expiry) column? Maybe comments too?
File & image uploads still default to NOW() on upload, and a manual removal of the date & time shows ’01 Jan 1970 00:00’ in the list. Article expiry is blank in the list. Comment publish dates are fixed, and don’t have an expiry as such.
Edit: Textpattern 4.8.8 used NOW() for new links publish date & time, I assume there was a decision made to change that to user-provided prior to 4.9.0?
Last edited by gaekwad (Yesterday 21:31:50)
Offline
Re: RFC: links with no publish timestamp should have a blank field in list
gaekwad wrote #342435:
Textpattern 4.8.8 used
NOW()for new links publish date & time, I assume there was a decision made to change that to user-provided prior to 4.9.0?
The introduction of the Reset time to checkboxes probably messed that up. Though I’d expect the media to still use ‘now’ by default on upload.
Thanks for checking. Empty dates shouldn’t show 1970, imo. Definitely some stuff to iron out here.
The smd plugin menagerie — for when you need one more gribble of power from Textpattern. Bleeding-edge code available on GitHub.
Hire Txp Builders – finely-crafted code, design and Txp
Offline
Re: RFC: links with no publish timestamp should have a blank field in list
Thanks, Bloke. Would you like an issue opened to track?
Offline
Re: RFC: links with no publish timestamp should have a blank field in list
Bloke wrote #342436:
Though I’d expect the media to still use ‘now’ by default on upload.
It does. Manual removal post-upload flips it back to epoch.
Offline
Re: RFC: links with no publish timestamp should have a blank field in list
Okay, yeah, we need to track this and find some fixes. Thank you.
The smd plugin menagerie — for when you need one more gribble of power from Textpattern. Bleeding-edge code available on GitHub.
Hire Txp Builders – finely-crafted code, design and Txp
Offline
Re: RFC: links with no publish timestamp should have a blank field in list
First pass in #2044
Offline
Re: RFC: links with no publish timestamp should have a blank field in list
Bloke wrote #342434:
Hmmm, that feels buggy and probably related to the date expansion to any AD date.
Well, yes, now 0 timestamp corresponds to a valid date, so we need to check differently whether the publish date is set on save. I expected safe_strtotime('-- ::') would return false, but it returns 0. My bad, thanks for the report.
Offline