AMPXF - AMP for Xenforo 2

AMPXF - AMP for Xenforo 2 [Paid] 1.4.8 Patch Level 3

No permission to buy (€50.00)

mazzly

Well-known member
thank you for your response, but still have few questions

does this need a special configuration re-writing rules in order to work with Lighttpd, Nginx, etc..
It should not require any rewriting rules.
If normal XF works fine with your config, AMPXF will also work fine. :)

I can't 100% say if any of our existing customers are using Lighttpd, but nginx I know works fine without anything extra 👍

And of course if any problems with lighthttpd, we shouldn't have any problem figuring it out :)
 

otto

Well-known member
Hello,
can you please use a more clear, normalized version numbering for this add-on?

Otherwise such stupid (sorry) things come up:
1664962213792.png

This:
1664962259439.png
is a litle bit horrible and against simple coding/versioning standards. ;)

Also it brings your addon at the ignore list in this very usefull add-on:

So please use a clear version number system like:
good 1.4.7.1 and not good 1.4.7 Patch Level 1
good 1.4.7.2 and not good 1.4.7 PL2 with PHP 8.1 ... (why the hell you use the text here? use it at description please ;-) )
...

Your add-on optimize sites for mobile devices - now optimize please your version numbers for Xenforo, the members and the real helpfull add-on "Check Add-on update" from @0815

Thanks. :)
 
Last edited:

mazzly

Well-known member
Hello,
please use a clear, normalized version numbering for this add-on.

Otherwise such stupid things come up:
View attachment 274413

This:
View attachment 274414
is horrible and against simple versioning standards. ;-)

Also it brings your addon at the ignore list in this very usefull add-on:

So please use a clear version number system like:
good 1.4.7.1 and not good 1.4.7 Patch Level 1
good 1.4.7.2 and not good 1.4.7 PL2 with PHP 8.1 ... (why the hell you use the text here? use it at description please ;-) )
...

Your add-on optimize sites for mobile devices - now optimize please your version numbers for Xenforo, the members and the real helpfull add-on "Check Add-on update" from @0815

Thanks. :)
I'll try to keep this in mind when releasing 😊👍

Btw the addon dev for that addon also uses "bad format"..😁

Also: our addon automatically informs you about new versions in the ACP 😉 (patch level ones are not informed unless you enable that option under advanced tab in addon options)
 

mazzly

Well-known member
Can you be more specific to fix this? ✌️
I was just basing it upon the details in the post above (they use similar format).. To be honest we are following the versioning format recommended by xenforo.. 😊👍

I'll be away a couple days for traveling, but I'll check when back if there would be some easier way for that addon to check these things, rather than having forum members post snarky messages 😁
 

otto

Well-known member
He uses "Beta" yes - but he use it every time a new update comes up.

You use "PL" or "Patch Level" in mixed modes and add some description text to your version number. I think, thats a little bit away from the practice @0815 use.
But yes - I think also Xenforo should take a look at there add-on version recomentations... an be more restrictive.

rather than having forum members post snarky messages 😁
That was not my intension - but other add-ons make similar things wrong, yours was the first I see with such a massive wild version numbering. So... OK, you won the first price in this race. Sorry. :D ;)
 

Forsaken

Well-known member
He uses "Beta" yes - but he use it every time a new update comes up.

You use "PL" or "Patch Level" in mixed modes and add some description text to your version number. I think, thats a little bit away from the practice @0815 use.
But yes - I think also Xenforo should take a look at there add-on version recomentations... an be more restrictive.


That was not my intension - but other add-ons make similar things wrong, yours was the first I see with such a massive wild version numbering. So... OK, you won the first price in this race. Sorry. :D ;)
Matching XF version in RM and json is the only thing that matters; things coming down to 'bad format' are just pushing the buck.

It's also not an expectation that you work within the constraints or expectation of another 3rd party developer, and it's silly to expect anyone to cater to them. PL is often used in place of Patch Level, and is legible to end users which is what matters in the end.
 

otto

Well-known member
... you misunderstand me It's less about whether he uses "PL" or "Patch Level" or not both. But he sometimes uses one form, sometimes the other, and sometimes an additional description...

It's just wild growth and not a clean style. That's all.

I also think that the issue has now been sufficiently clarified with the developer - at least he understood it and I just don't know what else you're doing here instead of letting it go...

Thats all from me about this theme - there is nothing more to say. :cool:
 

mazzly

Well-known member
you misunderstand me It's less about whether he uses "PL" or "Patch Level" or not both. But he sometimes uses one form, sometimes the other, and sometimes an additional description...
A regexp that handles both/all variants + optional extra text in the title would be quite easy for the developer to create 😊👍 if he wants to parse the title, that is what should be expected 😁

But yeah would be good if xf allowed to enter the "raw" version numbering that could be exposed in some metadata instead 😊
 

otto

Well-known member
But yeah would be good if xf allowed to enter the "raw" version numbering that could be exposed in some metadata instead 😊
Yes, exactly. :)

A regexp that handles both/all variants + optional extra text in the title would be quite easy for the developer to create 😊👍 if he wants to parse the title, that is what should be expected 😁
Come on... that sounds a little bit like others should clean up things I(you) do not so clean as possible for me/you... ;)
But yes - that can be a way to also check add-ons who there developer gives funny version numbers in the RM. 😜:sneaky:
 

mazzly

Well-known member
It should be perfectly fine to write both Patch Level and PL, and the addon should support both... The text after should not matter really..

Also version numbering has the same "problem" .. If some dev e.g. Does a typo with extra dot in it, the regexp could easily ignore for things like that..

Then not to mention that there are actually multiple fields when posting a new update 😁
Screenshot_2022-10-05-21-49-39-79_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg

Is the addon using the "new version number" field somehow? (is it even exposed anywhere?) Or is it parsing the title field? Because we've never added extra text in the version field, only in the title one...

Maybe addon dev could clarify a bit about the formats and how they are queried from xf site? Maybe there is some external addon support that we could give by exposing a "latest version" endpoint on our site, etc etc
@0815 probably knows best (we can also take ideation/planning in PM rather than in this thread 😊)
 

otto

Well-known member
For the Check Add-on Updater its egal if PL or Patch Level - if... you use one of these and no mixed mode of both.
And I think (I doesnt know) he use the version number field like I red marked next screenshot.

mixed mode version typing:
1665004950449.png
... is not a clear way of using version numbers I think.

That has less to do with the Check Add-on Updater - that hasto do with your way of version typing as you can see above eg.
And there a mixed versioning typing like you do also simply bad readable.
So what is the problem, to simply use one way of version typing instead of every version with an other version typing??? ;-)
It costs you nothing, it is a question of organisation and clean easy to read version numbering. Not less and not more. So simple. :)
 
D

Deleted member 232995

Guest
It should be perfectly fine to write both Patch Level and PL, and the addon should support both... The text after should not matter really..
Should? No!

There are very clear rules for assigning version numbers. I use " version_compare " from PHP - which strictly follows the rules of version numbers.

So I think maybe you better report that to PHP then, so they can be more flexible.

Also, let's say I could improve something. That would be a bottomless pit. Because everybody writes something different....

1.0.0 B1
1.0.0 Beta1
1.0.0 - B1
2022-05-09

Who is supposed to see through this ? Why can't people stick to rules ?

1665040967385.png


By the way: It works for the others;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

otto

Well-known member
Yes, so it is - it can be so simple and it costs nothing. No extra time, no extra brain and no other pain. ;-)
 

mazzly

Well-known member
Should? No!

There are very clear rules for assigning version numbers. I use " version_compare " from PHP - which strictly follows the rules of version numbers.

So I think maybe you better report that to PHP then, so they can be more flexible.

Also, let's say I could improve something. That would be a bottomless pit. Because everybody writes something different....

1.0.0 B1
1.0.0 Beta1
1.0.0 - B1
2022-05-09

Who is supposed to see through this ? Why can't people stick to rules ?

View attachment 274474


By the way: It works for the others;)
Yes, so it is - it can be so simple and it costs nothing. No extra time, no extra brain and no other pain. ;-)
There is everything you need to know about this case :)

Quickly skimming the docs for version_format() it doesn't seem to be compatible with XF versioning recommendation, because XF addon tools exports it as Patch Level and not pl/p, same thing with Release Candidate vs rc.. See below bolded text..

The function first replaces _, - and + with a dot . in the version strings and also inserts dots . before
and after any non number so that for example '4.3.2RC1' becomes '4.3.2.RC.1'. Then it compares
the parts starting from left to right. If a part contains special version strings these are handled in the
following order: any string not found in this list < dev < alpha = a < beta = b < RC = rc < # < pl = p.
This way not only versions with different levels like '4.1' and '4.1.2' can be compared but also any
PHP specific version containing development state.


So it seems your addon relying on version_format() will be problematic in the long run, since addon devs will likely use the recommended format by XF rather than the PHP one...

So I would recommend you add handling to convert those into the PHP format if you want your addon to work correctly :) 👍


I now decided that I will use the following procedure for all future releases
  • In Version number I will put the version_string from addon.json file (This one will always follow XF versioning format)
  • In Update title I will write whatever I want :)
1665318395692.png

In the History tab for addon here, you will find the "version number" that devs add when releasing new versions.

Hope that helps :)
 

nodle

Well-known member
I don't know if it has been mentioned before, but you should offer your AMP Robot feature as a separate feature. I always loved how it crawled and checked the pages for broken BB code and links.
 
Top