Manual mod install URLs

[Dannii]

Can you make the mod site link to the full URL for the manual mod install instructions? It's a pain to have to wait (ok it's only 5 seconds, but still!)

[Kill Em All]

I concur.

[Arantor]

You mean have the Parse button's form be method GET rather than POST?

[Dannii]

Either that, or a redirect.

[[SiNaN]]

It accepts GET too.

Once you parse the package, second part of huge title ("{Mod Name} - Installation Instructions for {Version}") will have the direct URL to parse the package.

[Arantor]

I think the request was more to promote the GET link rather than parse then snag the link.

[[SiNaN]]

Well, how this would help with that?

You mean have the Parse button's form be method GET rather than POST?

Since there are many versions, I don't see a neat way to provide them in the form of links. Suggestions are welcome though.

[Arantor]

That step wouldn't, I just wanted to be sure we were talking about the same thing at that point.

Hmm, yes I do see what you mean though, since the same mod package can have different install instructions for different versions.

[Dannii]

Why wouldn't changing the form to GET work?

Oh and I said link in my first post, but what I really want is for the form to take you to the proper URL, rather than the generic action=parse.

[H]

The GET link is already available in the form results after it has been submitted. Changing it to the default want change anything except the URL style. What you've having problems with is the 5 second wait time. This has nothing to do with the type of form that is being submitted. Instead, it is intentionally there to prevent people abusing the server resources.

[Dannii]

Why can't the form go to the full URL in the first place?

[[SiNaN]]

Well, it doesn't need to and it is by design. As I said in my post above, there already is a complete URL to parsing the package, once you parse it.

[Dannii]

Why is it by design? What purpose does it serve?

[Oldiesmann]

Because it's easier to have a form than to have a separate link for each version of SMF that is supported by the mod. In addition, we would run into problems for the mods which have separate packages for 1.1.x and 2.0. We'd have to add functionality so they could choose the SMF version for each file (rather than for the mod itself), which just gets even more complicated.

[Dannii]

You don't get what I'm saying. Keep the form, but change it to a GET so that when you submit it you're taking to the specific mod install link!

Also, if they do have different packages for different SMF versions, wouldn't we already have that problem now?

Also, it would be nice if the drop down list didn't list versions which weren't supported by the package.

[H]

Also, it would be nice if the drop down list didn't list versions which weren't supported by the package.

Often the purpose of doing a manual install is to try and attempt install on versions which aren't claimed to be supported

[Dannii]

It doesn't do that though, it says "Sorry, but this modification does not appear to be compatible with the selected version." But t could be useful if the mod has ranges in their package-info.xml file but the mod page hasn't been updated. That's what I'm suggesting, check the package-info.xml file first and only list ones that could work. Alternatively, let it try for other versions. You would need something tricky to correctly predict which <install> is most likely to work.