Closed (fixed)
Project:
Signup
Version:
5.x-2.1
Component:
Email
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Bug report
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
29 May 2007 at 03:15 UTC
Updated:
20 Jun 2007 at 22:49 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent file
I am running signup 5.x-2.1 without Event. I do not know if this is a bug or a configuration issue, but whenever I try to send a Signup Broadcast, I get the error:
Fatal error: Call to undefined function _event_date() in /home/username/public_html/sites/all/modules/signup/signup.module on line 1695
Is this a feature dependent on Event, perhaps? I understand that the Send reminder option does require Event at this time.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #8 | signup_no_event_2.patch | 2.39 KB | stborchert |
| #2 | signup_no_event.patch | 2.11 KB | stborchert |
Comments
Comment #1
dwwi haven't investigated, but this definitely sounds like a bug to me. should be easy to fix if anyone wanted to try rolling a patch for it.
Comment #2
stborchertMe, me.
Errm here's the patch :-)
The description of the body-field is changed additionally depending on whether event.module is present or not (
"%time"is hidden but will be replaced byt('[Untimed]')if you insert it).Stefan
Comment #3
dwwcool, thanks. a few minor nits:
i'd rather see the non-event $support_strings defined in an
elseblock instead of defining it twice like this.or, you could do something like this:
$trans['%time'] = t('[Untimed]')initialized in anelsecase than defined twice.all of this would be easy for me to just fix before i commit, but i'm posting it here for educational value, and to make it more likely that future patches you submit for signup (and i hope they keep coming!) will be more likely to be committed as-is, instead of requiring additional work from me.
thanks,
-derek
Comment #4
stborchertWhat about using
t('Supported string substitutions: %tokens.', array('%tokens' => implode(', ', sort($tokens))));Using this you would have the option to place the tokens whereever you want within the string due to translation.
Comment #5
dwwsure, that works. i suppose the RTL translators would prefer it this way, in fact. ;) it means the token list will be passed through
theme('placeholder'), and therefore bothcheck_plain()'ed (needlessly) and wrapped in<em>tags (probably for the best). but yes, that'd be fine with me with. thanks.Comment #6
stborchertHm, true.
But this is not necessary, i.m.o. (I used "%" because I was not really familar with the "new" three options yet). The strings are defined within the module and don't contain neither html nor other risky data.
So we can use
!tokens?!PS: the patch is ready; you only have to (dis-)agree to this
Comment #7
dww% is fine. as i said, it's needlessly calling check_plain(), but it's not double-escaping anything, so it's still correct. however, visually, these are placeholders, and therefore, they should go through
theme('placeholder')so that they're wrapped in<em>(at least by default... themes are free to consistently change how placeholders look by implementing this theme function themselves). that's what i tried to say above, but perhaps wasn't clear enough. thanks.Comment #8
stborchertOk, you've persuaded me :-)
The tokens really look better after
theme('placeholder').Attached is the (hopefully) completed patch to be committed.
greetings,
Stefan
Comment #9
dwwyup, that's just lovely. reviewed, tested, and committed to HEAD. thanks. minor, tiny change: i left the commented-out %info in there, just to remind us that we're still not handling that case, even though we might want to be.
Comment #10
(not verified) commented