XF 2.3 What's new for developers in XenForo 2.3?

As promised, this week we're going to take a quick look at some of the more developer-centric changes coming in XenForo 2.3.

If a certain topic interests you more than others, click one of the links below:

• JavaScript
• SwiftMailer to Symfony Mail
• Doctrine Cache to Symfony Cache
• Updated Emogrifier
• Registry preload event
• Native IP conversion methods
• Support for class strings
• Updates to <time> tags - short date format
• Template names in HTML output
• AbstractCollection nth method
• Smart Javascript cache buster
• XF.createElement
• Template macro syntax changes
• Direct messages

Please note that the following libraries are no longer bundled with XF 2.3:

• ccampbell/chromephp
• doctrine/cache
• league/flysystem-ziparchive
• swiftmailer/swiftmailer
• symfony/debug
• web-token/jwt-signature-algorithm-eddsa
• web-token/jwt-signature-algorithm-hmac
• web-token/jwt-signature-algorithm-none
• web-token/jwt-signature-algorithm-rsa

While we do have a little more to show you, the next couple of weeks is going to be focused on getting XenForo 2.3 ready to be installed here and some additional "Have you seen...?" posts may arrive between then and a public beta release. Until then, thanks for coming on this journey with us.

 

[Chris D]

What's for SEO?

There's been a bunch of stuff that will help SEO including performance optimizations and IndexNow support. What more are you hoping for?

 

[cdub]

And again in English please. ..

Lol it's all the things devs need to know about the hys changes so far. It's Chinese to me but as long as the devs understand it... Awesome

 

[KSA]

There's been a bunch of stuff that will help SEO including performance optimizations and IndexNow support. What more are you hoping for?

Nah you have done a fantastic job and I must commend you for that. I just remembered that there was a comment or two from someone from Google I believe regarding certain tempate structures. Has that been included yet or is it left for XF 3.0?

 

[Chris D]

Most of the suggestions were implemented in 2.2.13 and there will be further improvements based on their recommendations in 2.2.14.

 

[James]

Outputting every template name rendered instead of the main template is a much welcome change. Makes it so much easier to debug rather than having to find the parent template then find where the includes appear.

Nice work.

 

[Xon]

There might be scope for us to make some adjustments to this, or it might be the case that PhpStorm just doesn't support it yet.

A bit of tinkering, shows phpstorm doesn't appear to support the that @return behaviour and need class-string<T> $shortName.

Something like this works:

    /**
     * @template T of Entity
     *
     * @param class-string<T> $shortName
     * @param mixed $id
     * @param array|string|null $with
     *
     * @return T|null
     */

If class-string<T> doesn't resolve, it'll have the type hint of Entity which is good enough.

 

[CedricV]

This is starting to feel more like 3.0 than 2.3. Maybe it’s me though.

Great job nonetheless.

 

[Chris D]

A bit of tinkering, shows phpstorm doesn't appear to support the that @return behaviour and need class-string<T> $shortName.

Something like this works:

    /**
     * @template T of Entity
     *
     * @param class-string<T> $shortName
     * @param mixed $id
     * @param array|string|null $with
     *
     * @return T|null
     */

If class-string<T> doesn't resolve, it'll have the type hint of Entity which is good enough.

Was nearly there myself in my tinkering. Thanks for getting it over the line. I'll get this logged so we can get the relevant php docs updated before release.

 

[Stuart Wright]

I get how conversation will become direct message, but a conversation means something different to a direct message to the extent that finding the new alternative to leave conversation is not straightforward. Leave this exchange of direct messages?

 

[digitalpoint]

I get how conversation will become direct message, but a conversation means something different to a direct message to the extent that finding the new alternative to leave conversation is not straightforward. Leave this exchange of direct messages?

Simply "leave conversation" still makes sense to me even if it was started in the context of a direct message (it's still a conversation at it's core... like I can have a conversation with someone via Instagram or X even if there's nothing specifically labeling it as such when I started it).

 

[mjda]

Admittedly, a lot of this is complete gibberish to me, but I'm always happy to see a little focus on the developers.

I am happy to see conversations changing to direct messages, though. I feel like it'll clear up a lot of confusion, at least with my members. Thanks y'all!

 

[Chris D]

I get how conversation will become direct message, but a conversation means something different to a direct message to the extent that finding the new alternative to leave conversation is not straightforward. Leave this exchange of direct messages?

Simply "leave conversation" still makes sense to me even if it was started in the context of a direct message (it's still a conversation at it's core... like I can have a conversation with someone via Instagram or X even if there's nothing specifically labeling it as such when I started it).

FWIW it's just "Leave direct message" at the moment.

 

[digitalpoint]

FWIW it's just "Leave direct message" at the moment.

Nitpicky, but "Leave direct message" doesn't "flow" in my mind (you aren't really leaving a specific message). I just went and looked to see what Instagram and X call their version of leaving a direct message chain...

X calls it "Delete conversation"
Instagram calls it "Delete chat"

Both of those make more sense to me even if they were initiated as "direct message". My vote that has no actual voting power would be for it to just stay as Leave conversation (it's still a conversation, it's also what X calls it when you leave a DM there, and "leaving" makes more sense than delete in the context of XenForo since you aren't actually deleting it and you can be added back).

 

[Suzanne O]

For us non developers this packs a punch with many changes possibly going to be/have already been made to the software.
I look forward to the full release of 2.3.

 

[mjda]

FWIW it's just "Leave direct message" at the moment.

I know I'm a southerner, but "Leave direct message" doesn't sound right to me. It sounds a bit like "leave a voicemail", which has nothing to do with actually exiting something. I think either "Leave conversation" or, more preferably for me, "Remove direct message" would be better.

 

[Slavik]

I vote for "Exterminate Dialogue"

 

[Mendalla]

X calls it "Delete conversation"
Instagram calls it "Delete chat"

Both of those make more sense to me even if they were initiated as "direct message".

Except you are not deleting it. It remains for the other participants, hence "Leave". I'm glad the change to the Conversations came up here because I had kind of forgotten about it. It's probably the one thing I will need to highlight for my users day one.

 

[Sim]

... but why did you have to drop this on a Friday night / Saturday morning? It's 5am and I'm supposed to be heading out to get set up for Saturday morning sport, but now I have to stop and read through all of this! shakes fist

(at least I am very much liking what I'm reading)

 

[Rhody]

Kudos!

What a comprehensive set of improvements, so far. This is sounding more like a 3.0 update.

I look forward to testing and implementing it on my forums.

It's great to see this positive momentum!

 

[Suzanne O]

I vote for "Exterminate Dialogue"

Gotta second that Dr who joke.
Lol