User talk:Jldupont

BizzWiki related
see Extension_talk:BizzWiki

Messed up extension
Ouch! I hope not. Can you clarify? - I'm not seeing the problem. Not in the browser (same Firefox) and not in the template code.

The changes I made only added choices to the list of types. They should not have affected layout unless I made a typo. I tried doing a diff to compare the current version with the version before my changes and I can't see the typo if there is one. If you can see anything I missed, help would be appreciated.
 * Some newer extensions (i.e. recently posted on MediaWiki.org) I stumbled upon appeared messed up; but now, I can't find which ones. Sorry.
 * I have looked at some of my extensions and they appear OK.
 * Sorry for the confusion. Jean-Lou Dupont 13:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to the <?php /* that seems to appear at the start of many of your extension pages, it may have another source. I noticed them in my browser before I changed the template. I don't believe that this version of MediaWiki has any extensions that support embedded PHP (check Special:Version to be sure) and the MediaWiki core markup certainly doesn't (it is a security risk for an open-to-the-public wiki like this one). Egfrank 07:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No I am not referring to <?php /* appearing on my extension pages; I know where these come from: I do not like to maintain multiple pages with the same content. The extension pages I post on MediaWiki.org come straight out of my Google Code SVN file; those are executable PHP pages. So, when I copy an extension from my SVN to MediaWiki.org, I just cut&paste the actual executable PHP code. Of course I could remove the extra <?php /* but sometimes I forget. Sorry for that. Jean-Lou Dupont 13:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you still having problems with the "way things look?
 * Whoops - no need to answer - just saw your note above. But thanks for the feedback anyway. Egfrank 13:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Backup related extension
Do you mean an extension that assists in backups? In theory there is no reason why it couldn't exist - most professionally administered installations probably have a few mediawiki backup scripts lying around. I know we do. I did a quick search and found Extension:Backup & Restore (unstable) Your mediawiki maintenance directory also has a nifty little script dumpHTML.php Although I suspect you already know about both of these.

Did you have something specific in mind? Egfrank 20:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I am writing an extension that provides a 'backup' hook; this hook will be used by another extension of mine which provides a backup facility to Amazon S3.Jean-Lou Dupont 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This sounds like the kind of thing that would normally be put on a special page. Perhaps you want to consider writing a subclass of special page and then add a custom hook that lets those who install your special page extension define custom backup procedures in addition to whatever ones you bundle with your extension.  Egfrank 11:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more complicated than this; I have picked a bad name for the extension (i.e. 'backup') because it is more akin to a 'replication' function. There most probably will be a 'special page' for the 'restore' part but not for the 'backup' part. Anyhow, since I am working part on this, it will take some time before the complete solution is ready. Jean-Lou Dupont 15:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(TODO) While we're on the topic of hooks
I've been doing some cleanup on Category:Hook extensions and Extension hook registry. I've noticed you've defined quite a number of custom hooks for your extensions. Perhaps you might want to add some documentation of each of those hooks to the Extension hook registry - it would help users make better use of your extensions. Egfrank 11:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. Jean-Lou Dupont 11:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Unknown action handler
How does Extension:UnknownActionHandler relate to the MediaWiki hook of the same name: c.f. ? Egfrank 16:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It allows setting an 'handler' for an 'unknown' action. The handler is PHP code stored in a database page. The code is enclosed in tags. Jean-Lou Dupont 16:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick answer. Looking at your code, it appears that you are using the  to create the association between the action and the php code. Is this what you mean? I've added a paragraph to Extension:UnknownActionHandler explaining that  - the original description was a bit confusing and made it sound like you had defined your own custom hook in lieu of . Egfrank 17:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct.
 * This extension is part of my '1st wave' of extensions I did. I wasn't as sophisticated nor tidy about documentation as now... not that I am that good either ;-) Jean-Lou Dupont 17:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Parse markup
Hi. I'm trying to hack Semantic Forms to parse wiki markup on its forms and show it on its Special:EditData pages. Unfortunately, the developer doesn't seem too interested in implementing this so I was wondering if you would know how to do this. I'm hoping this will allow other extensions, like Simple Forms to work with Semantic Forms (instead of just showing up as unparsed wiki markup). Any help would be appreciated! Thanks. —Eek 19:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If its a case of parsing wikitext in $text (example), then just a parser call suffice. E.g.


 * Or are you looking for something more complicated i.e. exactly how to retrofit the above code in the extensions you are referring to? Jean-Lou Dupont 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea, more specific, since I'm not much of a coder and wouldn't know where to put this. :/ I'll mention it to the dev though. Thanks. —Eek 06:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, in SF_FormPrinter.inc I tried putting this (starting at line 450):


 * but get this error:

Fatal error: Call to a member function getUseTeX on a non-object in ../wiki/includes/Parser.php on line 550


 * Any ideas? —Eek 08:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like the parser isn't initialized. You probably want to to something along the lines of:


 * Jean-Lou Dupont 18:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so what about the RecursiveTagParse function--is it no longer necessary? I'm not sure about the variables either...or even where to specifically place all this code anyway... —Eek 10:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I have glanced over the code in question and I can't easily find head from tail i.e. this code looks difficult to maintain. I am disappointed to say that I will not be helping you on this one. Maybe next time. Jean-Lou Dupont 11:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)