|
I used to be co-author for article Your Development Tools[^] starting from 26-Mar-14. However at some point my profile has vanished from the co-author list. If I try to add myself, I keep getting a generic, dictionary related error...
|
|
|
|
|
I can see you as co-editor this moment! All seems good...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: I can see you as co-editor this moment!
 I can't. So it seems that there was a short moment when the co-author info was present but vanished again for some reason....
|
|
|
|
|
Now I added some content to the article, added myself to co-author list and submitted the article. Then I realized I need to make more modifications, but when I try to edit the article, the editor is showing wrong version (44). That version does not contain the databases section I just added...
Really confused 
|
|
|
|
|
Now (at 22:30 on 21 of June 2014 - local time) I see you as co-editor, and I see a 'Databases' section with six entries (MariaDB, MySQL, Firebird, PostgreSQL, SQL Server Express Edition, Oracle Database Express Edition 11g Release 2). The current revision number is 45. Something is missing now?
If does you should call the hamsters to aid...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
What happens if you try to edit the article. Does the editor open with version containing the Databases section or with the previous one?
|
|
|
|
|
You right! While editing it looks like a different version. Without the 'Databases' section and without you...
I call upon @Sean-Ewington to help us fix it...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
On the version I can see the Databases and Mika's name ... is it still wrong?
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Sean,
The published version is correct (version 45) but if you start to edit the article, you'll notice that the editor brings up version 44 which doesn't contain databases section.
I believe the same thing has happened months ago since at some point I wasn't a co-author anymore. Perhaps the next modification after me started with false version???
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. The published version is the good one, but when you start edit it you got something else. Mika is missing and no Databases section at all...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
OK I republished the article using the latest text, hopefully that will help.
I would wager that the system has a limit on the number of authors. I don't know if it was ever intended to have that many co-authors. Has anyone seen more than 7 authors there? When I added Mika back manually it got cranky and I think it kicked another author off the list to make room.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Now it looks perfect, but you are right - the co-authors text box displays only 5 ids so if some got editing it (and save) one of the co-authors will fall. It is Mika because of the abc ordering (w is at the end)?
The problem is that theoretically everyone who edits this list has all the right to be a co-author...
Maybe we should move to some non-exist community editor like 'CodeProject' (like in the interviews) and remove all of us?
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Well it looks like it's your article originally so it's your call.
The way it will order the names (I believe) is by user ID, smallest to largest.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
I have no problem to move it to some common account - the only question is who will got the notification about request to add new items. Not all users willing to the editing and not all have the bronze level to do so. So one of the listed editors take up the task as now...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Only those who are listed as authors on the article will get notifications of changes.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Not too good, as sometimes the article need handling...(do you have the spare time to take it over?)
My problem is that I feel not competent to decide who to remove! Even I started the article but others done no less than me!
We should say - tangled?
(By the way - it seems that I can save as much co-authors as I want, but when re-opening the article for more editing the editor page returns only the first 5...)
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
I would say chances are good that every time someone updates it, I will be the one looking at it in the approval queue to push it live. So I don't think we need to add me for formatting purposes.
Let's just make Mika boss of it 
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
OK with me...Do whatever need to be done...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
My first doc in my first workspace - so be gentle 
Create a doc with the following HTML source:
<pre><span>This is just a test</span></pre>
The preview looks fine:
This is just a test
But the publish/save as draft assumes everything within the <pre/> is literal so they encode the text such that the published/draft doc ends up appearing as:
<span>This is just a test</span>
i.e. with the 'span' tags (in this case) appearing to the user.
The 'source' has now been modified to include HTML encoding:
<pre><span>This is just a test</span></pre>
MTIA
Andy
modified 19-Jun-14 7:23am.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't understand why things are appearing the way they are with the Browse Code & Workspaces following the article update yesterday.
This article: Google Chrome Extension - CodeProject Reputation Watcher[^]
As you can see on the article, I uploaded the V2 Source Zip and appended it to the article.
If I click the BROWSE CODE (Left Nav Bar), it will show you a file with cprepchromeext_v1.3repgraph.html which is ancient and obsolete. If I then click the COMMITS [3] button, I can see the the upload from yesterday. https://workspaces.codeproject.com/daveauld/google-chrome-extension-codeproject-reputation-wat/code/commit_diff/master/941a849c6fd1bbce0ba297cf4185dee56b1d8bd3[^]
Clicking this link shows that there were "Showing 36 changed files with 36 additions and 1456 deletions". Click the Browse takes me back to the view showing the V1.3 file above.
Approaching from the "View This Articles Workspace" on the navbar, shows the same old file.
A couple of weeks ago when I looked(before I went to do the upgrade), it showed a number of folders representing the zip files of each version over time. Now it apparently just shows garbage.
I am very confused, almost as confused as my 70 year old mother with Win 8 trying to work anything.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that code repository works as expected, and the only surprising facts are the commits which were done, by zip uploading.
There are 3 commits, which chronologically were:
- add v1.3 version, 1 file, 30 lines
- add v2.0 version, >30 files
- revert back to v1.3 version, delete all v2.0 files
So, the most recent commit is the v1.3 again, and that why it gets shown. Did you uploaded v1.3 by accident?
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. I don't even have a copy of pre-1.6 I created a branch on GitHub, cloned locally did the update, deployed to Webstore, zipped up and put changes on CP. then did a pull and merge on GitHub.
Somethings gone wrong here at the CP end. All I have done is uploaded the V2 zip to the article and published.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, sussed it!
The article still had all the old versions (1.3 to 1.6) zips in the list of files, even though they were no longer needed or being referenced by the article. I deleted them, republished and it sorted itself out.
For whatever reasons, the backend decided that the V1.3 was the one to keep.
This obviously has implications where authors like to keep previous revisions also available, maybe a bug needs fixing or a feature needs tweaked.
|
|
|
|
|
there should be an option to remove report from questions, articles and post as a person might update his questions, articles and post.
|
|
|
|
|
If something is closed because of reports than it can be posted as a new thread with updated content.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
