Custom BBCode

[Jessica.]

would Paint work?

[NanoSector]

would Paint work?

Yes.

[Jessica.]

okay

well I used GIMP anyways


another question. How do I 'apply' a button to a tag? I created a tag and I got the button edited.


EDIT: Never mind. figure it out myself

[casaschi]

It has been fixed to smf guideline as far as I can tell.
If someone with authority here wants to test and attach it to the OP,  be my guest imao.

Just tested it against 2.0 RC5 (I just had to add RC5 to the list of supported versions) and it works.
Havent done an extensive testing, just tested a couple of bbcodes I was using with the previous version.

[Leniek]

How to add 2.0 RC5 to supported vesions?

[casaschi]

How to add 2.0 RC5 to supported vesions?

Get the zipfile attached to this earlier message, then edit the file package-info.xml changing from

Code Select Expand


<install for="2.0 RC2, 2.0 RC3, 2.0 RC4">
...
<uninstall for="2.0 RC2, 2.0 RC3, 2.0 RC4">

to

Code Select Expand


<install for="2.0 RC2, 2.0 RC3, 2.0 RC4, 2.0 RC5">
...
<uninstall for="2.0 RC2, 2.0 RC3, 2.0 RC4, 2.0 RC5">


You should be able to install on smf 2.0 RC5 the updated zipfile module.

[Arantor]

-sigh- Why do people keep insist on modifying the package file for 2.0 when 2.0 is quite capable of doing it without that?

Admin > Packages > Browse Packages > Advanced > enter 2.0 RC4 in the box provided, packages for 2.0 RC4 will typically allow you to install after that.

[Angelina Belle]

Because it is a new feature, and the documentation does not present Emulate Version in a way that is obvious to many users.

[Arantor]

I realise that, but we're talking about something that's been in 2.0 for nearly 2 years at least, and something that should be being actively taught rather than people being told to have to modify the package when it isn't necessary.

[Angelina Belle]

something that should be being actively taught

You are doing a great job of that. Thanks!

http://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/Packages#Advanced

[casaschi]

-sigh- Why do people keep insist on modifying the package file for 2.0 when 2.0 is quite capable of doing it without that?

Admin > Packages > Browse Packages > Advanced > enter 2.0 RC4 in the box provided, packages for 2.0 RC4 will typically allow you to install after that.

Well, I can tell you my personal experience: when I had to figure out how to install the mod for smf 2.0RC4 on a test site with smf 2.0RC5, it was pretty easy to figure out how to add a line to the file in the mod. At no point in my search I saw the option of emulating a previous version (?).
Bottom line, to your question, people do that because it's the path of least resistance; you can argue it should not be like that, but today with the current documentation apparently it is.

I might also ask, if 2.0RC5 is around since a long time and if it's so easy to upgrade the mod package and avoid the problem altogether (so no manual fiddling with the file and no emulations), why dont we have for download an updated package mod?
It would not take much for me to do it if you like me to...

[Arantor]

At no point in my search I saw the option of emulating a previous version (?).

I'm not arguing that it's not the most user friendly option, but it's gotta be better than unpacking a zip, editing an XML file, repacking it and uploading it back to the server. And it's been there since 2.0 RC1 at least if not earlier.

why dont we have for download an updated package mod?

Because the author hasn't been around to update it?

It would not take much for me to do it if you like me to...

And it would have to be removed since only the original author has the right to do so.

[Garou]

First l want to say that in most cases if you can add a BBC function using this mod, its just as easy to package your own mod for it. After that...

I hate the fact that so many authors confine their mod to certain versions of SMF when it could possibly work with so many more. For instance 2.0 has been feature locked for a while and the only updates will be for security reasons. Most of the times these wont have an effect on a mod.

Why not use something like 2.0.0 -2.99.99 in the install then on the mod page the author can select which versions of SMF they have actually tested the mod on. It keeps them from having to update the mod every time there's a new version of SMF that doesn't effect their mod and its less hassles for an admin to have to figure out.

The worst case scenario is that an admin is able to install the mod but it doesn't work. Then they can uninstall it, even if it has to be done by hand. More then not if a mod isnt compatible with the current files  for a version they'll get errors during the install anyway. Then you can try to emulate a different version, or does emulation only check the versions numbers rather then the files? I haven't checked.

In any case it makes much more sense to me. Not that its going to help in this case, Sarke hasn't even logged on to this site in over a year. Bah dah bum bum bum, another mod bites the dust (my apologies to Mr. Mercury).

[Arantor]

Or you can use version emulate, now a standard feature in 2.0

[Garou]

Yes but have you read the innumerable post of people that dont even realize it exists.

They upload the file, then on the "Package uploaded successfully" page they click [ Install Mod ], the emulation isnt even available on that page at all. So then  they get an error that says the mod isnt compatible with their version of SMF. Next thing you know they are back here asking that the mod be updated.

If they happen to happen to install from the browse package display the function is hidden under that tiny little "Advanced" link.  While advanced admins are aware of the function the general public needs something more simple. 

The function needs to be much more visible. Maybe show it by default on both pages with an option to hide it rather then the other way around. Better still, to make things easier on the average admin, minor SMF version checks should just be eliminated all together for mods. Checks for 1.0, 1.1. 2.0 would suffice. Ok 2.0 RC2 was a major change and affected a lot of mods but if the mods were incompatible they would error on install anyway.

At least that would generate a valid support request rather then the bogus ones that results in "use version emulation" and or having to explain how to use it  every 5 posts or so, such a waste of time.

Since the current versions of SMF aren't solving this simple problem, authors can by using an all inclusive install tag in the package info. It just seems way more practical to me. 

[Arantor]

For 1.1.x, all inclusive tags are incredibly practical since for the most part things aren't going to change.

For 2.0 bearing in mind I started with 2.0 RC1, the changes between 2.0 RC1 and RC3 were easily enough to warrant not using catchalls, but 2.0 RC3 and up the story's a bit different. That said, I'm currently doing some overhaul on SimpleDesk and I absolutely have to use RC5 in the version string because it simply won't work on anything lower, not even RC4.

[Garou]

Ok understandable and people shouldn't be using the outdated versions of SMF for security reasons anyway. Its worse then people that cling to IE6.   

However how do you know that the mod wont be compatible with versions beyond RC5? You can save yourself some headaches by making it installable on future versions. If it winds up not being compatible you'll wind up releasing a new version anyway. If it is compatible then you dont have to update the mod or have to reference an obfuscated function.

[Arantor]

I don't know that. But you cannot wildcard for that.

[Garou]

Sure you can.

Code Select Expand

<install for="2.0 RC5 - 2.99.99">

I used it for the transition from 2.0 RC1.2 to RC2. One set of modifications uses 2.0 - 2.0 RC1.2 and a second set for 2.0 RC2 - 2.99.99. When I was a charter member RC2 was released for charter members only and I had to keep the old instructions for members that couldn't update yet. As it stands I haven't had to update that mod since and it works just like it always did on RC5.

[Arantor]

Funny, I could have sworn they modified the behaviour of the system since then, that treated things differently.

But given the complexity of the mod I'm working on, I really would rather test it out rather than use a catchall, especially since although the transition from RC2 to RC3 was painless, there were changes for RC4 (not just presentational ones, but security related impact), different changes for RC5 (hook behaviour related) but hopefully no more between now and final, whereupon I will feel comfortable using a catchall.