Advertisement:

Author Topic: Some basic patches for 2.0.x  (Read 56949 times)

Offline Chainy

  • SMF Friend
  • Sophist Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,017
  • Gender: Male
  • SMF Translator (Esperanto)
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2013, 04:01:56 PM »
Should be safe, although I haven't actually tried it. All it's doing is allowing more browsers to be detected. In theory you should be able to add as many to the array as you like.

Thanks, Antechinus. So, as I understand it, this patch will probably do the job (fix the WYSIWYG problem in IE 11) - it just needs a bit of testing first of all.

Offline Chainy

  • SMF Friend
  • Sophist Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,017
  • Gender: Male
  • SMF Translator (Esperanto)
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2013, 04:09:29 PM »
I've noticed that WYSIWYG (rich text editing) doesn't currently work with Internet Explorer 11 in Windows 8 (with SMF 2.0.6). A pop-up message indicates that it's not possible. Apparently this is due to a problem with browser detection.
IE11 doesn't contain MSIE in user agent string and not detected as known IE browser.

This is kind of a major bug, isn't it? Internet Explorer is an important browser to support.

Offline Arantor

  • Resident Overthinker
  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 68,042
    • Arantor on GitHub
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2013, 04:14:54 PM »
To assume is to hope that those who came before had the presence of mind and capacity to implement the dreams of those who would come after.

You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. It seems you have chosen which, and now I must do the same.

Offline Antes

  • Evil Black Cat
  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 8,646
  • Gender: Male
  • Black cat rulz!
    • Antes on GitHub
    • merta on LinkedIn
    • @antesistan on Twitter
    • Lunarfall
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2013, 05:02:51 PM »
http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2&qpcustomd=0

You mean the whole 1.5% of users that use it?

IE11 released for Windows 7 that means IE10 sooner become IE11. Probably IE11 become 20% (according to data graph you linked).
Active Project(s): [ SimpleDesk ] # [ Lunarfall ] # [ CoreStore ]

Past Project(s): [ ezPortal ]

Offline Akyhne

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 7,331
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2013, 09:41:56 AM »
http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2&qpcustomd=0

You mean the whole 1.5% of users that use it?

IE11 released for Windows 7 that means IE10 sooner become IE11. Probably IE11 become 20% (according to data graph you linked).
Indeed. So maybe not a major bug now, but in a few months.

Offline Arantor

  • Resident Overthinker
  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 68,042
    • Arantor on GitHub
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2013, 09:45:16 AM »
Despite IE11/Win7 being crippled compared to IE11/Win8, you mean - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/11/ie11_features_not_for_win7/
To assume is to hope that those who came before had the presence of mind and capacity to implement the dreams of those who would come after.

You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. It seems you have chosen which, and now I must do the same.

Offline Akyhne

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 7,331
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #26 on: November 12, 2013, 09:50:54 AM »
People upgrade their browser and operating system when asked to. And they don't seek that kind of information.

Offline Arantor

  • Resident Overthinker
  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 68,042
    • Arantor on GitHub
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #27 on: November 12, 2013, 09:58:26 AM »
Going from Windows 7 to Windows 8 is not free. Gotta have a reason to have such an upheaval.
To assume is to hope that those who came before had the presence of mind and capacity to implement the dreams of those who would come after.

You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. It seems you have chosen which, and now I must do the same.

Offline Akyhne

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 7,331
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #28 on: November 12, 2013, 10:14:57 AM »
I was more thinking about patches.

Offline Antechinus

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 24,136
  • Master of BBC Abuse
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #29 on: November 12, 2013, 03:22:19 PM »
So I'll just write IE11 for W7 off in the same category I've always filed IE in: a POS crippled browser that's always trying to play catch up with the decent ones. Nothing to see here. Yawn.

The only reason IE is on my box is because it came with the OS. If not for that, I'd never bother installing it.

Offline Antechinus

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Super Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 24,136
  • Master of BBC Abuse
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #30 on: June 24, 2014, 02:56:54 AM »
Ok, I've had another look at the packages in the OP, and updated the browser detection package to handle IE11's actual user agent, not the one we thought it would have at the time (when IE11 hadn't actually been released).

Also threw in detection for Pale Moon. Probably wont ever be really necessary, but since I'm running Pale Moon now (and loving it) I thought it should go in, just in case.

Will submit the revamped packages to the Mod Site as usual. They're potentially very useful, and don't seem to be getting much attention tucked away in here.

Offline stmaxx

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 108
    • SurfaceThemes - Web Design Ideas Classic Rock
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #31 on: June 25, 2014, 01:46:38 PM »
Thank you and Glad you are working with these things... great news!

regards
stMaxx

Offline Chainy

  • SMF Friend
  • Sophist Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,017
  • Gender: Male
  • SMF Translator (Esperanto)
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #32 on: August 04, 2014, 05:03:26 AM »
Thank you, Antechinus. I'm sure many people will find this very useful. I wonder how 2.1 will handle this?

Offline Arantor

  • Resident Overthinker
  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 68,042
    • Arantor on GitHub
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #33 on: August 04, 2014, 05:08:54 AM »
Aside from the obvious fact that it could even be tested since it's on Github (and testing is something is apparently such a huge hurdle that any testing would be welcomed), 2.1 detects IE11 just fine, and doesn't detect Pale Moon specifically because it generally projects itself as Firefox and should generally have the same rendering characteristics and behaviours (which is all the browser detection is really for anyway) and any test for is_ff should generally work and apply to Pale Moon or similar.

As far as post 2.1 release, we'll be in exactly the same situation as 2.0 is currently in unless the policy of the team is altered to have 2.1.x patches be for bug fixes, something I was always keen on but this was not especially welcomed IIRC.
To assume is to hope that those who came before had the presence of mind and capacity to implement the dreams of those who would come after.

You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. It seems you have chosen which, and now I must do the same.

Offline Chainy

  • SMF Friend
  • Sophist Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,017
  • Gender: Male
  • SMF Translator (Esperanto)
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2014, 06:00:26 AM »
Arantor, I think there are some sites which make it possible to test with Internet Explorer (for people like me that don't have access to Windows). Do you know of a particular site that you'd recommend for this?

Offline Arantor

  • Resident Overthinker
  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 68,042
    • Arantor on GitHub
Re: Some basic patches for 2.0.x
« Reply #35 on: August 04, 2014, 06:03:18 AM »
BrowserShots.org is the go-to but that's only any good for rendering of guest-visible content. Some of the more intricate behaviours under the hood can't be tested that way.

For example, attachment serving physically behaves differently between the major browsers because of the way SMF sends the Content-Disposition header (and it's still just as messy these days if you have mixed encoding risks)
To assume is to hope that those who came before had the presence of mind and capacity to implement the dreams of those who would come after.

You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. It seems you have chosen which, and now I must do the same.