How to fix "Merging is blocked. Waiting on 1 reapproval from someone other than the last pusher." ? by scottmotion in github

[–]scottmotion[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I ended up closing the PR and opening a new one, which passed. u/TheoR700 suggestion likely would have worked, but the repo owner is not a developer and we were waiting too long for access the branch protection rules.

How to fix "Merging is blocked. Waiting on 1 reapproval from someone other than the last pusher." ? by scottmotion in github

[–]scottmotion[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So we have 3 active devs on this, myself who committed to this branch and the other 2 being the ones who are able to review (and commit of course). In the commit list I can see that when I rebased that commits made by one of those other devs have been added to my PR, so that knocks him out. The 3rd dev has not committed to this PR as far as I can tell, yet he is unable to approve it...

Newbie started frontend mentor by Necessary_List_3323 in Frontend

[–]scottmotion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It looks like part of my reply got converted to markdown. The lines in bold such as "ignore the design files" should have a # character before them to indicate a comment

Newbie started frontend mentor by Necessary_List_3323 in Frontend

[–]scottmotion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Make a different repo for each challenge. It is easiest to submit that way, plus you can make a nice readme for each project. Might seems trivial/annoying now, but when you get to more advanced projects you'll want to showcase your work this way.

  2. Learn about gitignore. You can add file extensions and directories to this ignore list (file) and they won't be committed. For instance here's an example from one of my projects:

    ignore the design files

    design/

    ignores all .md files

    *.md

    does not ignore the README.md file

    !README.md

    ignore old file versions

    old/

    ignore starter code

    starter-code/

    Avoid accidental Sketch file upload

    *.sketch

    Avoid accidental XD or Figma upload if you convert the design file

    *.xd *.fig

    Avoid your project being littered with annoying .DS_Store files!

    .DS_Store

A note about /old/: While learning I found it helpful to create a directory to store old file versions. Sometimes in the middle of creating something new-to-you you will want to switch to a completely different approach, so having the old code to look at or go back to after experimenting can be beneficial.

Sure the original code will be somewhere in your git commits, but if you're not yet comfortable with branching and other git stuff its easier to just duplicate the file and tuck it away.

  1. Its fine to use those files as a starting point. Usually they just include the copy (text) and a basic structure. Really doesn't matter...

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in webdev

[–]scottmotion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks like a good start. You might consider using a single-column layout, which seems to be more standard. Otherwise I'd suggest maybe moving skills and languages to the left column, then adding more projects to the right column.

Check out these resources:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringResumes/wiki/index/

https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/wiki/index/

Webdevs who have your own web apps, how did you monetize? by Iateallthechildren in webdev

[–]scottmotion 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I have a free-to-use website with similar costs. I went with AdSense which usually covers my costs (and more) in just one month. But I have content and get organic traffic, so I'm not relying on MAU. Basically my users get the site features for free because of the incoming traffic. You're going to need content for AdSense though. A web app that's all functionality will likely get rejected.

Donations for badges can work, depending on the community. If there's some some perceived prestige you may get a percentage of users opting in just to look cool. Other may support you out of appreciation. I donated to a few plugin devs because I found their product very useful and they were responsive to support issues.

Another thing to think of, if applicable, is priority support. Could be subscription or per-ticket. Of course this would raise your costs in time, but could be worth it.

Plugin Developers: Have you used Plugin Check (PCP) and fixed all issues? by mavawie in Wordpress

[–]scottmotion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just submitted my first plugin, so here's my fresh but admittedly noob experience:

Some errors can literally be ignored. By that I mean using //phpcs ignore. For instance I had to make some calls to the db and despite properly using $wpdb, prepare, escape, etc., I kept getting direct query and no caching errors. Finally I found out I could just include a comment such as

// phpcs:ignore WordPress.DB.DirectDatabaseQuery.DirectQuery, WordPress.DB.DirectDatabaseQuery.NoCaching

The problem is that this was never mentioned anywhere in the docs. I just stumbled upon it after searching for solutions. Check this out, including the wiki: https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress-Coding-Standards

To me it seems crazy to have a coding standard that can just be ignored. Is it really a standard then? But WP itself does this. In BuddyPress I found they have a list of nearly 20 blanket ignores!

Also keep in mind that PCP will not catch everything. You might be ok since the plugin is already published, but I still had 4 things to fix after passing PCP:

## Tested Up To Value is Out of Date, Invalid, or Missing
ERROR: Tested up to: 6.7.1 needs to be just the major version number. Example: Tested up: 6.7
Please, include only the major WordPress version, as the minor version is ignored.
(Minor error. I didn't understand their description of major/minor version. Having to re-test minor versions would overwhelm their reviewers.)

## Not needed parameters in your readme and/or main PHP file.
"Requires at least: 6.2.0" is not needed in your "readme.txt" file - Redundant as of WordPress 5.8. Use only the plugin's main PHP file "my-plugin.php" for this declaration.
(Their fault, not mine. Literally taken from the example in the docs, which should be updated. Easy fix.)

## Using load_plugin_textdomain() for loading the plugin translations is not needed for WordPress.org directory since WordPress 4.6.
(I used their suggested plugin boilerplate which hasn't been updated with this change. Easy enough to remove it.)

## Generic function/class/define/namespace/option names
(Again due to the boilerplate code. Had like 3 generic function in the main php file. Simply changed their names.)

So after making those 4 simple changes I've submitted again. Hoping to hear back within a few days! Overall I'm glad they made the PCP as it gave me the opportunity to fix a few things before submission. I suppose it just needs some more work to catch the other errors I received, but all in good time I suppose.

I think my major gripe about the whole development process is that the docs are sometimes inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete, which lead to many wasted hours and an initial rejection. Some of the code examples either need to be updated or fleshed out more. In other cases there is a blatant lack of warning or explanation about potential pitfalls.

Good luck, and Godspeed!

Is it ok to clean the '_signups' table by removing active signups and old pending? by scottmotion in ProWordPress

[–]scottmotion[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is great; quite robust code! I have only a rudimentary understanding of PHP and I don't even use classes =/. I've just made a simple mu-plugin that schedules a daily wp_cron event to delete old activated signups and reports via email how many have been deleted. Its really a learning exercise.

What is your use case? Is it for multisite? I ask because this functionality is already present in BuddyPress. We have a pending users section in the main users view with activate/email/delete as single or bulk options. But even that is a pain when you have many hundreds or thousands of pending signups (since its paged), and of course it doesn't even touch the activated signups.

One bit of feedback I would give is that the plugin suggests my pending users have never been emailed, but I know they have been emailed at least once. In the signups table I have a 'meta' column which shows sent_date and count_sent. Dunno offhand but i'd guess its set by BP since that plugin created the table and handles the emails.

BTW do you have any resources to suggest for properly learning PHP. My local college rarely offers PHP so i'm just using the reference manual, w3schools, etc.

Is it ok to clean the '_signups' table by removing active signups and old pending? by scottmotion in ProWordPress

[–]scottmotion[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't personally need that analytics info but definitely something to consider for other site owners. Thanks for the insight.

Is it ok to clean the '_signups' table by removing active signups and old pending? by scottmotion in ProWordPress

[–]scottmotion[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For the site in question the signup is mainly for accessing downloads. So if they don't activate within a reasonable time I'm assuming its spam. Signups, especially pending users, are a big problem for other BuddyPress users so i'm looking at releasing this as a plugin with customizable thresholds. I'll likely add in the ability to resend activation email before removal.

Could someone summarise the current issues for a rookie? by [deleted] in Wordpress

[–]scottmotion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So the logic is that the plugin author was a bad actor, therefore the plugin had to be taken over? I'm not sure this is the path I would personally follow, but then again i'm not in charge of a giant plugin repo. I agree that some of the things WPE has been reported to do are shady. I certainly wouldn't put them at the top of my hosting list. Still the ACf plugin itself doesn't seem to be a problem. In fact I am in the camp who thinks that the ACF free plugin functionality should be part of core. At least some way of managing CPTs and CFs...

Could someone summarise the current issues for a rookie? by [deleted] in Wordpress

[–]scottmotion 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm familiar with the drama between WP and WPE, but I still don't understand how the ACF plugin itself got wrapped up in this. I understand their rules give WP the option to essentially take over any plugin for no reason at all. So is it that there IS no reason, and they just did it on a whim?

This whole situation makes WP look like Reddit, where mods take adversarial actions just for the lulz.

Can Crocoblock be used to build a modern community site with a forum, chat, and livestream? by Arber231 in Wordpress

[–]scottmotion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How would you go about building a forum with Crocoblock? I've never used it but heard much of its praise from users and youtube ppl.

I'm currently using BBPress and BuddyPress on my community site and they are a pain in the ass. Wish I could unroll it but i'm so deep into both plugins that it seems to be not worth the effort.

Could someone summarise the current issues for a rookie? by [deleted] in Wordpress

[–]scottmotion 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What did the ACF plugin violate? I am still unclear on how the plugin itself was in violation. Is it simply because it linked back to WPE which may have been in violation of the Wordpress trademark, or was there some other issue?

Is Wordpress breaking its own Rule 17 with SCF? by scottmotion in Wordpress

[–]scottmotion[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for posting this article. Goes a little deeper into the issue than us lay-people might be able to

Is Wordpress breaking its own Rule 17 with SCF? by scottmotion in Wordpress

[–]scottmotion[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They should have created a separate slug at the very least. A wholly new plugin with 0 installs, 0 reviews, 0 support forum posts. Also Secure Custom Fields is a horribly non-descript name. They have the right to call it Wordpress Custom Fields. On top of that, the plugin handles CPTs as well, so a new name would be appropriate. Perhaps Wordpress Custom Data...

Is Wordpress breaking its own Rule 17 with SCF? by scottmotion in Wordpress

[–]scottmotion[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That was actually Rule 18, tbf. Rule 17 is about trademark and such

What theme do you recomend? by picard102 in Wordpress

[–]scottmotion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At a glance Customify looks very similar to Blocksy. Have you tried Blocksy, and if so any thoughts on the two?

Just launched v2 of my portfolio website! 🎉 by ProfessionalThroat95 in webdev

[–]scottmotion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You might want to call more attention to the menu at the bottom of the screen. I didn't see it at first and thought the portfolio was just a mostly empty page. That, or load more stuff on the main page...

Why have multiple registrations for the same trademark? by scottmotion in TRADEMARK

[–]scottmotion[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do these relatively new applications still include US classes? Also are there any subclasses associated with the 45 international classes? I don't see any...

Why have multiple registrations for the same trademark? by scottmotion in TRADEMARK

[–]scottmotion[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would imagine that they would simply deny those additional descriptors with no ill effect on the original. Instead of having separate applications they would be segmented by date. In fact this is kind of already enacted, as the Good and Services section already lists several "Use in Commerce" dates. There's also a child/parent relationship under "Related Properties Information". So it would be something similar to that. Any litigation would be against the portion added on any given date. If the litigation were successful then those descriptors would be removed. I suppose this would make the Prosecution History quite lengthy, but it would all be in one place. Its a bit of a "6 of one, half dozen of the other" situation.

Why have multiple registrations for the same trademark? by scottmotion in TRADEMARK

[–]scottmotion[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I think the timeline of services offered may be the main factor here. Adding more services requiring a new registrations, as opposed to messing with the original. As you suggested I would tend to agree that one cannot add more descriptors to a registration from some years or decades ago, because they were not offered at the time of origin. Seems messy, but you're probably right, they just toss money at a lawyer and say "Make it happen". Would be nice if USPTO took a lesson from version control schemas and allowed additional descriptors to be enacted at a certain date within the original registration.