Drupal: Sexy Bookmarks Dienste verschieben Inaktiv / Aktiv defekt

Vielleicht hat es der ein oder andere gemerkt - die Social Media Icons im Footer der Seite haben sich etwas geändert!

Grund ist, dass "Sexy Bookmarks" in der Version 2.0 erschienen ist.

Ich habe mich entschieden, dieses Update zu installieren. Soweit so gut. Einige Kritik an den Entwicklern muss man trotzdem anbringen:
Zunächst einmal wurde dieses major Update als Sicherheitsupdate markiert. Warum auch immer- dann darf man bessere Qualität erwarten!

1. Die zuvor eingestellten Nodes - auf denen die Icons angezeigt werden - wurden nicht übernommen. Zudem muss die Einstellung nun auf jedem Node-Type extra vorgenommen werden. Sehr nervig!

2. Die Settings sind standardmäßig zudem auf "aktiv" sowohl als Node, als auch als Teaser - damit ist man sofort nach der Installation gezwungen, die Einstellungen anzupassen. Sonst ist die Seite zerschossen

3. Des Weiteren benötigt das Modul jQuery UI 1.7 - was sicher nicht auf vielen Drupal 6 Blogs installiert ist! Ansonsten kann man im Adminbereich die Icons nicht vom aktiviert - auf den inaktiv-Status verschieben! Großartig!

Dafür habe ich zum Glück eine Lösung:
Firebug aktivieren, das hidden-Feld unter den inaktiv-Feldern suchen, welches eine kommaseparierte Liste enthält.
Hier könnt ihr nun manuell die Werte anpassen (entsprechend der Liste oberhalb) und dann speichern. So kann das jQuery Update übergangen werden.
Insbesondere wichtig, wenn andere Dependenzen vorliegen.

Die Lösung / Workaround von mir findet ihr auch hier auf Englisch:
http://drupal.org/node/1172962#comment-4550818

Insgesamt also ein trauriges Fazit. Da hätte man für ein major-Sicherheitsupdate eindeutig bessere Arbeit verlangen können!

Immerhin... man kann den Twitter-Button jetzt via spionierendes Plugin wieder nutzen.

Comments

Julian, While I am still

Julian,

While I am still railing from your incredibly disrespectful post in my D.o. issue queue, I have cooled off a bit and I am going to attempt a response to this post, or at least the Google Translate interpretation of this post.

The module was a complete re-write, and it was clearly stated on the project page that due to the upgrade to the core module code it was not possible to provide an upgrade path. If that is an issue for you you do not need to upgrade. The reason Drupal may have marked this as a security upgrade could be related to the fact that I set 6.x-1.x as no longer supported, because it is no longer supported.

The defaults are set to active because in general people who install the module do so to use it. If you disagree with these defaults I would suggest opening a issue on D.o. and raise the possibility of an alternate set of defaults. Complaining on a blog about it is counter-productive.

The reason jQuery UI 1.7 is required is that the 2.x branch was built for Drupal 7 and then back ported to Drupal 6. The alternatives are to maintain a completely separate code base for Drupal 6 or not provide a Drupal 6 branch at all. It is extremely simple to install jQuery UI 1.7 on a Drupal 6 website, but if you can provide me with a valid reason why that's not an option I would be happy to discuss alternatives.

What you fail to realize is the potential of this upgrade, as the core SexyBookmarks engine has been completely removed from the module, additional services and features can be provided to the module via Shareaholic, the SexyBookmarks JS engine developer, without you or me having to do anything.

Or maybe that just gives you something else to complain about.

Yours disdainfully,
Stuart Clark.

Hi Stuart, I hope you will

Hi Stuart,

I hope you will read my reply.

Firstofall I have to say sorry for my disrespectful post. I have to admit that I was in rage too, when I wrote it because I had to deal with the several problems mentioned above. By the way I didn't know the term "Yours disdainfully" yet. Nice to learn Wink.

All in all I am a sorry for that. It would have been better if I cooled down first. Please don't take it personal.

I really recognized the power of your module and I really know that there is a lot of work behind. Furthermore I hope that Google Translate translated my points correct, but I will explain them again in some words:

- The reason why I upgraded and thought I should do so is that it was marked as security upgrade. In such a case my expectation is, that there won't be other huge other "problems" (now I know that this was wrong and the reason why I went in rage - which lead to the unfriendly entry - sorry again).

- 1. point: The previous 1.x node type settings were not used in 2.x. This is really irritating and taking lots of time on huge pages if you have to click through each content type again (in the end I did this through DB). It just would have been a great bonus if the 1.x information had been used in the upgrade script. This is what makes a great module absolutely perfect. This is my mistake if this is technically not possibly.

- 2. point: The default settings for all content types are to activate Sexy Bookmarks in teaser and node view. This is bad in combination with 1. because if you have a lot of node types, you have to be quite fast to reach a usable configuration. If it was disabled as default or just enabled for some default content types, everything would have been OK. To make you understand my anger a bit I'd like to tell you that I finally had to do this on at least six huge pages with minimum 20 content types.
As you mentioned already I thought about an issue discussion on that.

- 3. point: I understand what you say about jQuery and the downgrade, but from a D6 users point of view this is just irritating. The required upgrade to 1.7 is not that easy especially for non-IT people. Furthermore it requires a current jQuery lib version, you may know the problems with this upgrade and that current jQuery is not downwards compatible in all points, which may lead to other issues.
The point is not, that it is not possible to do all of this but for many users it's just disturbing that you have to do all of this "just" to move some icons around.
BUT before you get me wrong here, I know that it's not that easy and in some points you just have to make a decision. So this is really not my main point and your arguments for this are absolutely clear to me. Perhaps a warning message regarding this point would have been nice on the other hand? (It would have been interesting to count the people having this issue.)
Finally you as the developer are the person who says what to use and it's my turn to check those requirements first. My mistake. So this is just about "nice-to-have".

4. point: After I dealed with these issues post upgrading I wondered about those "folder created" messages. First I hoped, that only admins will see them (which would have been OK), but I was wrong, as I had to find out. I know that this is kind of a bad smell in Drupal 6 and not your mistake. But on the other hand you have to understand me, if I say that this is not acceptable for professional websites (not like my blog) regardless of the reason, for a non-dev module release which didn't have those problems in 1.X.

So please let me finally apologize for my unfairness and thank you for your detailed and fair reply. On the other hand please take my criticism (not the unfair in-rage crap) into account. Perhaps you will accept some of my points or can even use them in further development.

I absolutely should know that development is not as simple as criticizing it. Furthermore I should know how unfair such criticism from the "upper view" is, without knowing about the core problems and reasons. Developers should respect each other and not be influenced of short-time-anger.
At least it was my choice to use the module and nobody forced me to.

In result the module you created is really great and for sure even one of the top modules. It would have been better to mention this too. I hope we both learned from this talk. I did.

Hope I found the right words in English as a non-native.

Yours respectful,
Julian

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

More information about formatting options