Should Signatures for Forums expose signatures to Views2 [#475018]

As the title says, should the Signatures for Forums module expose signatures to Views, and would this be per-nid, per-uid or both?

Comment	File	Size	Author
#4	475018.signature_forum_views.webchickrocks.patch	6.84 KB	liam mcdermott
#4	475018.signature_forum_views.webchickrocks.patch	6.84 KB	liam mcdermott

Comments

Comment #1

merlinofchaos commented 28 May 2009 at 14:44

Yes and per-uid (which is automatically per-nid in Views).

Comment #2

liam mcdermott commented 28 May 2009 at 17:28

Assigned:

Unassigned

» liam mcdermott

Thanks for the answer Earl, I'll try adding Views integration either tomorrow or over the weekend. Then would you mind doing a quick code review? It would be helpful and just in case I have completely mis-interpreted the Views API. ;)

Comment #3

merlinofchaos commented 15 June 2009 at 16:54

Did you make any progress on this? I'd love to have some code to review here =)

Comment #4

liam mcdermott commented 4 July 2009 at 21:33

Status	File	Size
new	475018.signature_forum_views.webchickrocks.patch	6.84 KB
new	475018.signature_forum_views.webchickrocks.patch	6.84 KB

I was wondering whether this would be required, and then forgot about it. :)

Attached is a patch, which is named after webchick following a conversation on IRC. It provides three ways of getting signatures: 1) straight from the database, by linking {users_signature} to {users}; 2) by using the {node} table and a custom field handler that adds additional fields to the query, required for a call to signature_forum_get_signature() in the field handler's render() function; 3) the same as (2), but with {comments}.

One caveat: signatures are called 'Signatures for Forums signature' as core already has 'User: signature'. I titled all instances of the signature field this way for consistency, even when not strictly necessary. If anyone can think of anything better, go ahead!