|
|
I noticed that a while ago. Thought it was a permission issue for me or something.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a draft version of an article and I don't want to preserve that draft. I want it so that the next time I click "Update Article", it gives me the most recent published version, not the draft. Yet clicking "Revert to last published version", while it does give me back the published version on the main page, doesn't seem to work when I opt to update again--then it gives me the draft version that I don't want. How do I discard the draft version so that the next update gives me the published version?! There seems to be no "Discard Draft" option.
PS. The offline version of the CodeProject Article Editor (which hasn't been updated in 5 years!) isn't very reliable: 1) The editing behavior itself is highly erratic, particularly when turning on an off bulletting/numbering ; 2) whenever one attempts to log in, numerous "scripting errors" occur; and 3) if one tries to "cut and paste" text between the offline editor and the online one, the article looks different in each--with formatting errors and even text being mis-arranged. Just thought you should know.
|
|
|
|
|
There's a "Revert to last published version" button at the bottom right of the submission wizard that may help.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
If you read my above question, then you'll know that that doesn't quite work like one would think it would. "Revert" only reverts the text for the "main page" of an article; the text on the "edit page" still has the working draft--presumably meaning that any further edits published would derive from the draft. I want the version that pops up when I click "update" to be identical to the version on the main page. (Seriously, does anybody READ the entire text of a question?) PLEASE HELP ME!
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Gustafson wrote: Seriously, does anybody READ the entire text of a question
Yeah I did.
Robert Gustafson wrote: I want the version that pops up when I click "update" to be identical to the version on the main page
Revert to last published version should remove all drafts that have been created since the last published version (the version on the "main page" as you put it. This should then mean that the editor will be loaded up with the latest "main page" version. From that point on you'll be creating new drafts based off the latest published version.
If it's not doing that then we have a bug. I'll do some testing tomorrow.
If that's not what you want or I still haven't understood, then please let me know what I'm missing.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I fixed it myself. I had to re-edit the working draft in order to make it look like it should, then publish that. I guess some things have to be done by hand!
|
|
|
|
|
OK - that's great that you got it to where you wanted it to be.
However: did you try using the revert button?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I did--as I said in my initial question. The problem was that "revert" alone didn't undo the changes to the draft like I thought it would. (Seriously, does anybody read the "fine print" of a question, as opposed to just the title question?) Anyway, it's a moot point now.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a moot point. The revert process isn't doing what it should be doing so I'll dig in and get it sorted out.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Can we get the vote message down option reactivated please.
|
|
|
|
|
vide supra Applies to Settings page.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a bit chicken and egg (and, truth be told, redundant).
If we had a nice neat way of telling if someone was in an area that had daylight savings based on their IP address than we'd have most of the problem solved. For that we need a really good IP to location lookup (we have an OK, but not perfect, one), and then a lookup that mapped the location to whether they observed daylight savings. Plus we'd need to constantly update this because it constantly changes.
If we had that then we wouldn't need that checkbox at all.
Now: the question that should be asked is "why have that checkbox"? The reason is so we can adjust times stored on our servers into local times for you. For that what we need is a GMT offset, and for that we should be (and soon will be) using a simple bit of javascript to sniff your local time settings directly. No DST checks or maps or IP lookup needed.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Yay! Because the current scheme has its idiosyncracies, to put it politely.
Cheers,
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
You guys are too polite
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Update made. Deploying tomorrow
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Am i the only one experiencing error message page while trying to open Update Wizard for articles?
|
|
|
|
|
Which article are you trying to edit?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Any article that I have published I was facing last night,right now not on desktop will check today sometime if still occurring
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like some database maintenance was killing perf at the time you were trying. I've added a task to reduce the load on the system due to the maintenance.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
In my post here [^] the rendered text appears like this:
"Here's an example of how this can be used:
[__b__]// in Form scope
private List<textboxexevents> TBxExInUse;"
But, the Bold tag in the source that gets turned into [__b__] appears to be used properly.
thanks, Bill
«... thank the gods that they have made you superior to those events which they have not placed within your own control, rendered you accountable for that only which is within you own control For what, then, have they made you responsible? For that which is alone in your own power—a right use of things as they appear.» Discourses of Epictetus Book I:12
|
|
|
|
|
Added to the bug list.
There's a long, long story behind that one. Easily fixed though: hopefully Monday.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Click on Member 13607938 - Professional Profile[^] and see what is in green where the report flag should be.
[edit]
It appears that the &acr=Success at the end of the URL was the culprit. Interesting none the less.
[/edit]
modified 5-Jan-18 8:51am.
|
|
|
|
|
He managed to post the link just after he reported, I think. Look at the OP's link. If you chop a coupole of parameters of the end, it behaves as we'd expect.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I found that by clicking the link in his home page.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
