Posted by dopry on March 20, 2008 at 5:05am
| Project: | Token |
| Version: | 5.x-1.x-dev |
| Component: | Code |
| Category: | feature request |
| Priority: | normal |
| Assigned: | Unassigned |
| Status: | closed (fixed) |
Issue Summary
It would be great for a lot of different reasons to have YYYY, MM, and DD available as tokens... File's for one could benefit.
| Attachment | Size | Status | Test result | Operations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| token-date.patch | 1.52 KB | Ignored: Check issue status. | None | None |
Comments
#1
I agree. But I had previously implemented this using the same kind of date tokens as in token_node.inc, which I think is better than having two different sets of date tokens (you used uppercase letters).
Attached pach applies to version 6.x-1.10, but with adjusted line numbers the same patch works for the 5.x-version.
The help texts about the new tokens (e.g. [site-date-yyyy]) do not appear in pathauto where I use them, but they work if you try to use them.
#2
Sorry for changing the title, perhaps better now?
#3
@emok, nice update... code looks good... maybe we can get a maintainer to check it out...
#4
I applied the patch to the 5.x-version of token.module (5.x patch attached). I tried the new date tokens with the filefield.module, to create a /files/yyyy/mm/ directory structure. Works great.
#5
*poke*
#6
Works great (D6), thanks for the patch. Any idea if it is possible to use the submit date of a node as a token?
#7
Tested (with token 5.x-1.11) and support the patch.
It's lovely when you think your going to have to write something and you find someone has done it already - cheers!
#8
marking this for commit later -- I'll run it by greggles too, but these make sense and they're good ones to use for directory building,etc.
#9
Seems quite reasonable to me.
#10
I applied the patch i #4 manually and it works great. (Note to self: learn to patch.)
#11
Committed to the D6 branch -- I'll be applying it to the D5 branch later today. Thanks!
temp
Automatically closed -- issue fixed for two weeks with no activity.
#12
Automatically closed -- issue fixed for two weeks with no activity.
#13
Did this ever get applied to the D5 branch? I don't see it there but maybe I'm overlooking something.
#14
Same question here. I'm using Drupal 5.x and I can't use node tokens (with imagefield). Has that feature been backported?
#15
Ok, answering my own question: I reviewed the 5.x-1.11 version's code and also the 5.x-1.x-dev version's code and found that the patch from #4 hasn't been committed. I also tested the patch against 5.x-1.11 and it seems to work without any problems.
Is there anything that keeps the patch from being committed?
#16
Since more than half a year there is a patch for the 5.x version that works but hasn't been committed. Is there any reason for that?
#17
*bump*
patch not committed for D5 & D6.
#18
Bumping this again after three weeks without an answer. Could somebody at least say why the patch still hasn't been comitted for 5.x-1.x?
#19
Thanks @emok and @brunodbo. Now committed to 5.x as well http://drupal.org/cvs?commit=195330
@ckng - the patch is committed to 6.x (see here). It is not in HEAD because eaton prefers not to use HEAD.
@yan - lack of round tuits. You could help increase the number of round tuits by cleaning up the duplicates and support requests in issue queue.
#20
Thanks greggles! I'll see what I can do to help out the next time. My problem was that I didn't even know why the patch hadn't been comitted (and I don't know much about developement processes).
#21
Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.