Jump to:
| Project: | Views |
| Version: | 5.x-1.0 |
| Component: | Code |
| Category: | feature request |
| Priority: | critical |
| Assigned: | Unassigned |
| Status: | closed (fixed) |
Issue Summary
Hi. love views but...
The "published" setting is core to Drupal. Users should be able to assume that any item that is "not published" should be not visible on the public site. Views by default shows all nodes that match the query, which means that view creators are required every time to apply:
Filter > Published EQUALS yes
(about 6 clicks, 1 page reload and lots of scrolling)
If a view creator overlooks applying this filter than content editors may end up displaying unpublished content on a live site, which could make many editors very upset.
Could we make it so that by default views does not show 'not published' nodes?
If a site require 'not published' nodes to be seen in a view, then they could override this default by applying a 'Not Published EQUALS yes'
Anyone else agree?
Comments
#1
+1
Great suggestion.
#2
At best I might automatically create that filter to new views, but I will not under any circumstances apply that as an absolute default.
This is absolutely not a bug.
#3
i think auto adding that filter on the add new view form is perfect.
#4
Perhaps a more general mechanism for specifying defaults or 'templates' for new view creation might be in order? I suppose one could export/import or clone from another template... (just brainstorming. tell me to shut up and go away if I'm being a pest.)
-Mike
#5
We already have that. 'default' views can be used as templates pretty easily.
And default views can be created by taking an exported view and embedding it in a hook_views_default_views() function.
#6
BTW, the answer here is a theme creator wizard. Someday when I have lots of free time...or maybe someone will take a shot at it.
#7
Just to clarify, do views allow users to see nodes that
node_access('view',...)would returnfalsefor?In my case, the issue is again users ending up seeing unpublished nodes in a view that they would otherwise not have access to. But there are all sorts of other permissions scenarios in which I would expect my views to still obey
node_access.#8
I agree with the original poster's complaint. The Published flag is critical to deciding whether content should be publicly displayed, and it is insane and crazy that Views by default shows unpublished content.
Because I am not an expert, I am not necessarily vouching for the original poster's solution. However, Views should somehow default to showing published content. That only makes sense.
This is so important that it should not be postponed.
#9
#10
Just to explain:
If you put a loaded gun to your head and pull the trigger, it's not the fault of the gun.
#11
This is just a ridiculous, unprofessional retort.
MerlinOfChaos, it appears you are having difficulty separating emotion and passion.
Your "explanation" to why you closed this reasonable real world feature request is inappropriate.
Can you please provide a real explanation to why you don't think this is a bug?
Drupal is a content management system designed to make your life easier, more productive and safe. It is not a gun in some weird roulette game.
You had 8 serious remarks regarding this architectural oversight of unpublished items appearing in public views, as our paying client also requested us, that makes 9.
We will probably go ahead and work up a preference patch to have views not show unpublished nodes, Skull Squadron will publish this to this list when we are finished with it.
MerlinOfChaos, if the most positive contribution you can make to this type of serious conversation is to squelch and close the topic without any action, I would highly recommend the Drupal site administrators removing your admin privileges.
Thanks.
Damien
#12
@Damien - Are you aware that merlinofchaos built the Views module with his own brain and two hands? Then he generously shared it with you and I and the whole world under the terms of the GPL.
And you think it is a good idea to remove his permissions from the Views project? Sometimes, open source developers have their own interpretation of how a module should behave and whether a behavior is a bug. As long as that developer is the maintainer of the project, your choices are to argue convincingly for a change, accept the status quo, or fork the project. I suggest you do one of those instead of making assinine recommendations.
#13
Moshe,
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your history lesson, I was unaware that MerlinOfChaos was the author of the module. Does that still make it ok for him to remark this way?
-Damien
#14
Very well.
I wrote about 97% of the code that's in Views. I maintain Views basically alone. I made that architectural decision.
You don't have to like it. You don't have to like me.
But if you are going to come here and suggest my administrative privileges be revoked because of an answer I give in my issue queue, I hereby request you uninstall my code from your servers. I am tired of people with entitlement demanding I spend my resources doing things their way. Tell me, how much have you paid for my services?
Oh yea, zero.
Do you then understand how much right that gives you to make demands of me?
Oh yea, zero.
Please, do me a favor. Uninstall Views, and go write your own version which is better, and contribute it. Until then, my design decision stands: Views does not provide default filters, sort criteria, fields, or anything of that nature. There are example views that show you what kind of filters are there for defaults, and if you cannot be bothered to understand how Drupal works, it is absolutely and completely inappropriate to come here and yell at me and threaten me about it.
This issue is closed, and unless you change your mind and have some respect for people who put in thousands of hours creating free software, please do not expect me to ever pay attention to anything you say ever again.
#15
Interesting. Damien appears to have created an account just to yell at me. I feel honored, now. I guess I don't have to worry about paying attention to him.
It seems that "unprofessional" comment was just an amazing piece of hypocrisy, doesn't it?
#16
@Damien: If you continue to annoy our most valuable contributors I'll happily block your account. This is the first an d only warning.
#17
This isn't the first time merlinofchaos has arbitrarily rejected a reasonable request with irrational and emotional invective. Maybe we should fork views so more responsive developers can run the project?
moshe weitzman: I appreciate merlin's contributions, but ultimately the Drupal project is about good software, not taking care of the feelings of hyperventilating personalities. So who built what is irrelevant in determining the validity of a request.
Making Views only show published modules by default is a very, very reasonable and responsive request. Even the Views documentation states that adding a filter for published nodes "is recommended for most Views!" (In other words, you're probably crazy not to do it.)
In the least, merlin could have invited others to do this if he doesn't want to mess with it.
#18
Aren: It was a request. I understand why people make it. I have rejected it. I have explained. I shall explain again.
1) Because it's so very easy to simply add the "Node: Published" filter.
2) Because Views does not make any assumptions about your data. Many sites do not even use the 'published' flag, because it is too simple and they need something more complex. That filter is then a burden to those users. Sure, those users are in the minority, but they exist.
3) I said above that this kind of thing should be handled by a View creation wizard, that can help you make your choices. I am not interested in Views making seemingly arbitrary choices.
4) See 1. I do not understand why it is such a burden to simply add the published filter to your views?
Aren: If this isn't enough for you, go fork Views. drupal.org policy will forbid you from forking it on drupal.org, so you'll have to store it somewhere yourself...and maintain it, of course.
This is my last response on this issue. I have wasted enough of my valuable time dealing with this. The next time you want to yell at me, I would like you to think about how much money you're making because of me, and what I've given you for free.
For the record, I don't feel like any of my responses to this issue were insulting, nor were they deserving of the insults I have received in return. I'm sorry you disagree with my stance, but being insulting is a good way to ensure my mind will never change, ever. And Aren, you've never really been clever with reasoned responses, you turn to being a dick pretty fast yourself. Because of that, if you insult me without reason again, I will recommend your account be blocked.
#19
I have to comment on this as i think often some people forget important facts when asking for what to them seems a small change, because they are only looking at it from their 'small' point of view.
I wonder how many people are using Views AS IS. without a pre-defined published criteria, adding it when they need it ? Probably a large number. Those people have spent a lot of time creating websites, for themselves, and probably clients. So who is going to PAY them to fix every view that doesnt work the way it used to after they do an upgrade to a version that makes such a drastic change, because a small number request it ? Those requesting the change ? I Doubt it ?
I am still running an earlier version of views, because it works, and several other modules that inter-relate work as I need them, When i know they all work happily together i will upgrade them all, so do I really want yet another task to add to my list, even though small, its still time.
My view is that Merlin has taken an Executive decision at an early stage of the design of views on how it will operate so WE can be provided with 'Views', which is a tool to make things easier for US, and which it does very well. I bet we were all in bed when he made that decision.
So the best thing to do is leave well alone, it works as it does.
Merlin, i congratulate you on a great module and thank you for the time and effort that you put in. Without this effort, my own website, and one i have created for friends who raise money for charity, would not exist
#20
Merlin:
I agree that no one should be demanding or even asking you specifically to fix this (let alone threatening you.)
However, I have to say that, just because you don't like the architectural implications of implementing the suggestion, doesn't mean that the module works appropriately. Users don't care (and should not care) about architectural purity when the behavior contradicts common sense; in fact, counterintuitive behavior suggests that it is actually the architecture that is the issue, not the users' expectations. Emerson said something to this effect regarding consistency.
My suggestion is to just leave this as an open issue. In that case, if someone wants to contribute, they would have accurate visibility into what the user community wants. What is the benefit of sweeping the issue under the rug?
"Please, do me a favor. Uninstall Views, and go write your own version which is better, and contribute it."
"If this isn't enough for you, go fork Views. drupal.org policy will forbid you from forking it on drupal.org, so you'll have to store it somewhere yourself...and maintain it, of course."
So which are you asking for? Based on your latter comment, I am not conviced you actually want people to collaborate and make the module better. Would you rather be 97% owner of a buggy module in a system of declining relative popularity, or a 37% owner of a kickass module in a robust and growing community?
You can of course ignore me as not being a Drupal contributor, but then again, you should realize that the adoption of Drupal and the survival of your contribution depends not only on the self-satisifaction of contributors, but whether it satisfies both end users and systems integrators. I am suggesting that your discourse in this issue thread does not help toward that end.