Topic: Administration - Deleted Admin

[Labradoodle-360]

Okay...this document has it's own script...why doesn't it suggest using administrate.php which is a script I wrote for both 1.1 and 2.0 to accomplish this?

[K@]

Why not edit it, to reflect that, Lab?

You can edit the wiki, I feel sure.

[Labradoodle-360]

Didn't want to modify it myself. I dont like modifying something that someone else wrote so I don't offend anyone.

[Doctor Deejay]

You can also just add that there is another alternative to fix administrator status and then link to your script.

Btw, are guests supposed to see this board?

[Labradoodle-360]

Probably not...I don't know lol

[K@]

No sweat in editing it, mate.

If you break anything, it can be restored easily enough.

[AngelinaBelle]

Yes.  Everyone can see this board. Lab-- please edit. It'll be a help. Really!

[K@]

* K@ gives the doodle a prod...

[AngelinaBelle]

Lab,

Please add your information. It will help EVERYBODY.
Thanks

[Labradoodle-360]

Meh I don't like butting in places...I suppose I'll try...

[K@]

* K@ pats the labradoodle on the head, ruffles his fur and offers him a marrow-bone.

[emanuele]

Didn't want to modify it myself. I dont like modifying something that someone else wrote so I don't offend anyone.

It's a wiki, go to edit that page and don't be a slacker!

[AngelinaBelle]

You are most cordially invited to contribute your knowledge to the wiki.

Invitation.  Now, you are not butting in.

Thanks!

[K@]

You are most cordially invited to contribute your knowledge to the wiki.

Invitation.  Now, you are not butting in.

Thanks!

That's mom-speak for "Stop being a wuss and get it done, my boy!

[Labradoodle-360]

I'd really prefer if someone else could do this...

[AngelinaBelle]

I don't know about administrate.php.

Who does?  Who can write something about it? If you can write it here someone can copy/paste it there.
Please
Thanks

[emanuele]

* emanuele waits to see if anyone else doesn't want to do a wiki edit...

Do you think someone will see any conflict of interest in an edit done by you on that topic?
Feel free to not think such things.

The link is there now, if anyone wants to improve the text feel free.

[AngelinaBelle]

In a flurry of activity, Illori also contributed (http://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/index.php?title=Administration_-_I_accidentally_lost_my_admin_account%21_What_can_I_do&action=historysubmit&diff=11868&oldid=11822) and I edited that.

I like emanuele's idea to list the ready-made script separately, so I have merged the changes together, and moved this information to the beginning of the article.

Thank you, Lab, for bring it it up, and illori and emanuele for providing some text we can use.

[Labradoodle-360]

It works on 1.1.x and 2.0.x. Furthermore, what needs to be done to make it an official script?

[AngelinaBelle]

I'm sorry.  I misunderstood.  I thought it only worked for 1.1
I don't know what makes a script official.

I thought the customization team would know the answer to that one.
Who deides?

[Doctor Deejay]

I always thought that a script was official when it was made by the team, for the team. But I don't know, it's just what I have always thought.

[Labradoodle-360]

I'm not sure...maybe the developers?

[Elmacik]

Obscurities.. There always had been here Even the lead developers did not namely call their personal-effort-made scripts as "official" in the history of SMF.

Usually, its expected that DEV team decide to make something needed by people and work on it together. Then it will be called official. Being made by a team member won't automatically make it "official" since the team is everlasting but the members of it are not.

But IMO, if devs approve this script and decide to support/develop it later; then it would be labeled official.

Btw, IMHO, this topic should have been opened in a non-public board.

[IchBin™]

IIRC the Lead Dev has the final say if code becomes official or not for any tool that is placed on the SMF site.

[Labradoodle-360]

I have talked to Norv about this in the past. Maybe she can swing by and let us know either way.

[N. N.]

I have talked to Norv about this in the past.

I remember I have suggested a little improvement in error handling, and to present it for testing.
Please point out to me if that was the case, and I might have missed it.


Another suggestion is simply to try, if you wish, to use the public repositories as we do on Github, and present it to people anytime you want.
ETA: As it is documented elsewhere, we have a few of our tools in work-in-progress repositories, such as:
https://github.com/norv/tools
https://github.com/emanuele45/tools
Any of them can serve as working place for our tools, feel free to fork one of them and add your own, then make a pull request.  
They are also pulled in our other repos and on the site when and where appropriate.

[Labradoodle-360]

I've not used Git or GitHub very much, as much as I'd like to learn it, I'm sticking with Subversion right now for time reasons.

[N. N.]

You can use svn with Git too!

I hope you'll like it when you get to it.

[Labradoodle-360]

I'm sure I'll like it, I've downloaded the Git BASH and Git GUI (prefer BASH) although I've not had time to learn how to do a bunch of things yet and my time is extremely limited.

[N. N.]

It seems I have missed the topic you have made in Tips and Tricks board in the meantime. Thank you for making it known!

The script isn't licensed though, and if I remember correctly I must have mentioned that too. Please do license it, if you want it to be considered for official tools. As stated elsewhere, this is a requirement, and we are not going to have any single bit of copyrightable code that isn't properly licensed with an open license. At this time, our official mods/themes/tools, or meant to be contributed to the ecosystem of official software around SMF or package server, are either BSD 3-clause, or Mozilla 2.0, any is fine and in fact other options can be discussed, as long as it's an Open Source license, as per (minimum) OSI guidelines.

[Labradoodle-360]

Can I license it under MPL 1.1? I think I may rewrite it tomorrow depending on how my time goes. How do you feel about it being written in OOP?

[N. N.]

That would be great, if you're willing to try your hand to! Please, feel free to.

Sure thing, MPL 1.1 is perfectly fine as well.

[Labradoodle-360]

Fantastic, I love OOP and think it's unfortunate to limit things to procedural (although I understand why of course).

Great, I'll keep in touch with any progress made.

[N. N.]

Well, there is no actual problem with this particular script, because there simply isn't doing enough things to benefit from OOP - apart from simply encapsulation. However, trying on smaller scripts is always a good fun, testing and learning avenue.

[Labradoodle-360]

Oh, I'm in the process of writing a chat software in OOP, so I definitely think I have the hang of it (at least, a LOT of it).

However, even for scripts the size of this, having it in OOP makes it more modular.

[AngelinaBelle]

Also, please list any requirements in addition to the requirements for the SMF version.
http://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/Requirements

SMF 1.1.x and 2.0 can run on php 4.1.0, but for OOP you need at least php 5.0

[Labradoodle-360]

It can run on either SMF 1.1.x or SMF 2.0.x. Although it will require a PHP version, as you said. Do I have to add error handling for that?

[AngelinaBelle]

There will be some kind of ugly error if you try to run it on a too-early version of php.
How does SMF handle that problem?

[Labradoodle-360]

WWSMFD.

[Yoshi]

SMF loads a compatibility file for PHP 5.1.0 or earlier. Subs-Compat.php if I'm correct.

[Arantor]

No, it loads the compatibility even for 4.3 and 4.4 seeing how there are 5.0 only routines in SMF.

And actually, you can do OOP in PHP 4, but it's somewhat poor. Which is why there's a custom class loader that tries to load PHP 5-style classes in a PHP 4 manner, see loadClassFile().

I do have to say though, putting things in OOP for one-shot scripts seems like a lot of complication for very little benefit, especially as that if you want to do things in pre-5.0 compatibility they need to be separate files and loaded via loadClassFile instead of just being single files.

[Yoshi]

No, it loads the compatibility even for 4.3 and 4.4 seeing how there are 5.0 only routines in SMF.

That's why I said "5.1 or earlier"...

I do have to say though, putting things in OOP for one-shot scripts seems like a lot of complication for very little benefit, especially as that if you want to do things in pre-5.0 compatibility they need to be separate files and loaded via loadClassFile instead of just being single files.

For one it keeps your code organized and you aren't having to fiddle with crap to get your variables. That seems like a huge benefit to me. Plus it's up to the creator to decide what way he/she codes it...

Though I just looked at the code of index.php and I think if you use SSI.php it will load the compatibility layer with it, since SSI.php and index.php are pretty similiar.

[Labradoodle-360]

Although he is right in the sense of compatibility. It's more work, plus if I lose compatibility, it might be worth just keeping it in procedural for now.

[Arantor]

That's why I said "5.1 or earlier"...

You edited after I started posting as you first started out by saying 4.2 instead.

Though I just looked at the code of index.php and I think if you use SSI.php it will load the compatibility layer with it, since SSI.php and index.php are pretty similiar.

loadClassFile is always loaded, you're supposed to use it to load class files like you do with loadTemplate - nothing to do with the Compat code.