« first day (1306 days earlier)      last day (3937 days later) » 

00:39
I've just been creating git commits using -amend with one dash, so now I have a whole lot of commits called 'mend'. /facepalm
4
 
6 hours later…
06:54
What tool you use for monitoring site performance (on a dedicated server)?
07:27
broad Q :) which performance?
> Added WP_Field_Base::TRANSFORMS() to support transforming field $args...
Metadata thing is going to be fun :D
07:46
@Rarst is that coming anytime soon?
no idea. I reason they need to finish it, then make a case for including into core
@Rarst ah yes, like query time, server uses etc.. Not browser side performace..
Munin, NewRelic
08:19
Looks like FF v29.0.1 doesn't support switching tabsOnTop :/
@Sisir Yeah, while introducing "the Most Customizable Firefox Ever" they removed all the customization options for the ui :/
09:06
@Sisir try TabKit 2 instead, vertical tabs, most useful addon, ever.
 
1 hour later…
10:09
@lkraav you've been spotted, run!!
10:39
i no understand ja?
it was noticed you popup a lot on notification feeds for cftp stuff
> "This Estonian chap seems interested in our stuff. I keep seeing him crop up. Stack Overflower, so perhaps Tom knows him? leho.kraav.com/";
:)
that's me. and i already made a preliminary run basically to the edge of the world
well what can i say, your stuff is well made. i don't have time for crappy things anymore.
11:25
the amount of translation crap WP does on boot still drives me nuts :(
> The amount of [insert topic in here] crap WP does on [insert part here] drives me [insert swear words in here].
yes, but this one I can't figure out how to carve out
__() 617 calls, 10% of wall time... translating english to english
too many places to carve out - I've given up on core replacements
@Rarst let's just lol and done
actually not many places left in properly hacked up stack.
registering defaults is bad because of this :\
yeah? got a list of things?
or are you just talking about "performance"?
11:39
core boot performance
you measured it with XCacheGrind?
(I suppose)
I have 2-click xhprof profiling :)
I suppose I should get rid of second click, it's too much workflow... :)
he
Hm. On one site, there's %post_type_name% in the permalink of some posts. Can't find that in any plugin... updating that problematic posts does not help. Any idea where to search that?
normal posts or CPTs? check registrations, dump rewrite
custom post type
checked registration already.
oh. got @toscho rewrite plugin installed... maybe that's the culprit
nope, doesn't seem to be the problem (or it hides it too good)
11:55
wait, isn't that default? otherwise it would be clashing with normal posts
Im my case it's a post type called knowledge_base. The URL prefix is kb. So (most) posts in the archive point to example.com/kb/post-slug-foo. But some point to example.com/kb/%knowledge_base%, so something isn't parsing. I just dunno where to start searching. :/
do you mean latter literally ? they point to link with rewrite tag percent signs and everything?
literally -> yes
weird
dump rewrite
exactly
They got a custom taxonomy attached. When I open a CT term archive, the links display fine.
When I open them in admin, they display fine and have the right slug. When I hit "View" I get to the right page.
When I change the slug, they still work fine, but also still have the %rewrite_tag% attached.
> Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any rewrite concept in WordPress.
> - Mark Twain
12:04
concept isn't the issue, implementation is :)
well, concept is a bit of an issue as well. the concept is to hide rewrites in the middle of everything vs. having URLs as common entry point for module controllers :P
where had you seen module controllers in WP? :)
plugins
in here
wait
I'm going to change our rooms name to Illuminati Lounge 187
The enlightened
...
damnit ... Only chance to get rid of that mess easily is to copy/paste contents from not working posts to working posts.
How US American churches try to get their sheep back in http://m.kurier.at/kult/wenn-die-kirche-ihre-schaefchen-lockt/65.304.360/slideshow
13:04
php --rf var_dump
Outputs info about a specific function ... I wonder if --rf is short for read (the) fucking (manual).
Reference Function
where humor doesn't work
:D
or maybe Reflection
php -l /path/to/file.php
That's one that I did not know: PHP CLI Lint
 
2 hours later…
15:16
totally forgot I bought a wootheme like 5 months ago ../goes to check cc statement
 
7 hours later…
22:40
it seems my script isn't loading jquery in time. They're being enqueued in the footer, I can see them in the source but $ is undefined.
ignore the deregisted of jquery
wp_deregister_script('jquery');
wp_enqueue_script('jquery','/wp-includes/js/jquery/jquery.js','','',true);
wp_register_script( 'media-match',get_template_directory_uri() . '/js/matchMedia.js','', '',true );
wp_register_script('main-js',get_template_directory_uri() . '/js/main.min.js', array('jquery','media-match'),'', true );
wp_enqueue_script('main-js');
this is giving me "undefined is not a function" at $(document)
not sure why that wouldn't work though
have you tried using jQuery() instead of $() ?
No, that did cross my mind, but does it want me to do that?
it's safer to do that
why are you deregistering jquery anyway?
you're not re-re-registering jquery are you
I threw it in trying to troubleshoot, i see the sillyness of what im doing :p
@TomJNowell also, that way seems to be the only way i can get jquery to load in the footer
22:58
@UzumakiDev why do you need it in the footer? the header seems fine
you're micro-optimising
stop that
google page speed
go make things actually work before you optimise
things do work, well they did before I started moving things into the footer.
are you doing it to make it faster, or to please a metric in google pagespeed?
purely for metric page speed because I'm doing work for an SEO guy :)
23:01
@UzumakiDev most likely the plug-in/theme will be loading jQuery as a dependency of other scripts (loaded in the header). If so, you ain't going to get it in the footer unless you move them also. Personally, I wouldn't bother...
agreed compatability issues abound
the client would probably be better served having a sane accessible markup hierarchy and heading hierarchy followed by an extensive interaction with a copywriter to rewrite all the stuff
probably yes. it's not any js im using as a dependency, it must be a plugin.
why are we told to load all of our scripts in the footer yet most of the time I try and do it the wordpress way it never works.
it's one of those things I always have trouble with.
ah fixed it lol forgot to put the $ in jQuery(document).ready(function($)
cheers @TomJNowell and @StephenHarris
I also stopped de-registering jquery :)
@UzumakiDev and when you register scripts, pass the correct types, not a bunch of empty strings.
@toscho you mean instead of ' ' put an actual value in there like '1.0'?
function wp_enqueue_script( $handle, $src = false, $deps = array(), $ver = false, $in_footer = false )
the first two are strings, the rest is not
23:16
ahh got ya
so instead of '' i should put false when it wants a boolean value?
$ver is terrbly designed, it accepts any scalar
yes, exactly. easier to read, and more likely to be forward-compatible
Got ya. I do love this place :)
Worry about 30+ meta key values when you have 100,000+ posts, not when you only have 100+ posts. At only 3000+ meta records, MySQL is blisteringly fast. IOW, don't worry about it. If you do get to 100,000+ records, move to a better server and start leveraging intelligent caching. — MikeSchinkel yesterday
Mike... yesterday... wat?
also note, you should call wp_enqueue_script without an URL, see wordpress.stackexchange.com/a/143164/73
are you referring to when you say, in the link, that you shouldn't use so many parameters with wp_enqueu_script, such as using a url and that you should just call wp_enqueue with it's handle wp_enqueue_script('stuff') and keep all the parameters in wp_register?
23:25
yes
got ya :) thanks for the tip, also I noticed that I should load wp_register earlier than wp_enqueue
use wp_loaded
yup, I see. Why do we do that?
23:47
explained in the answer I linked earlier

« first day (1306 days earlier)      last day (3937 days later) »