| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Etymon
Advanced Member
United States
2385 Posts |
|
|
bitwise2000
Starting Member
38 Posts |
|
|
Etymon
Advanced Member
United States
2385 Posts |
 Posted - 18 December 2006 : 23:30:01
|
| I see that I commented on it when it was posted, but other than that, I haven't looked at it. I'll download it, try it out, and get back with you about it.< |
 |
|
|
Etymon
Advanced Member
United States
2385 Posts |
Posted - 19 December 2006 : 00:48:45
|
I'll took a look at it in more depth later to understand how he worked his code to get his results.
Below are some points I took into consideration while reviewing his work:
Why each MOD was created:
It appears that he designed his work to keep certain topics from being archived. Thus, the need to flag them.
Since I have never (so far) in the 5 years that I have been using Snitz have had a need to archive topics by batch, I wanted the ease of archiving them individually as well as unarchiving them individually (in the event that I archived something I wanted to bring back into a current status for discussion).
In that sense, the mindset for why the MODs were created is different.
His work deals with segregating individual topics from being batch processed as well as archiving/un-archiving single topics.
Mine doesn't deal with batch processing. It offers an alternative to it.
I do like the flagging approach. I see a need for it. I just don't do batch processing, so I had no need to include it in my work.
What db properties each MOD modified:
His work calls for an edit to the TOPICS table to drop the T_ARCHIVE_FLAG field and add it to the A_TOPICS table instead. He didn't include this as a dbs_ file in his download for some reason, but he did offer it in the link you provided.
I wanted to create a work that didn't alter any of the standard existing db fields, since that could mess up other MODs as well as exising code. Instead, mine has a new table that stores the old TOPIC_ID and the new un-archived TOPIC_ID.
What each MOD produces:
As far as getting to the topic information, the results are the same.
However, his work is able to restore the original TOPIC_ID. My work gives a new TOPIC_ID.
Personally, I like restoring the original TOPIC_ID better. If I had known at the time how to do it, I would have saved myself some time and done it that way. But I am happy with the workaround that I found. I don't see a need to change it since it still gets the user to the correct information. 
Where each MOD is accessed from:
On the adminstrative side of things. His work focuses on archiving while browsing the forums and the topics, while my work focuses on working from the admin section (currently).
In admin_forums.asp his work functions like the current admin_forums.asp, so I don't see a difference there from what Snitz already offers, unless I am missing something.
In my admin_topics.asp, I incorporate each forum almost exactly as it is displayed in forum.asp (this is true for current and archived topics). This is something admin_forums.asp doesn't allow you to do.
General Summary:
The main differences I see currently are:
1) Mine doesn't work from forum.asp and topics.asp (yet)
2) His flags topics from being batch archived.
3) Mine wasn't intended for batch archiving.
4) His doesn't give you the individual topic selection from admin_forums.asp
5) Mine is gives individual topic selection from admin_forums.asp.
6) His restores the original TOPIC_ID.
7) Mine gives a new TOPIC_ID.
Where each MOD is in development:
It seems cripto9t's MOD hasn't been updated for nearly two years. I did a search for "Archive Flag" in both the Subject and the Message of the current and archived topics and found little about it. It would be cool if he would update it and package that dbs_ file with his download!  It looks like his was a really nice work!
My work is just in the alpha phase, and comments are welcome.
In the beta I plan on adding functionality like cripto9t did in forum.asp and topic.asp so that a person can access admin_topics.asp from the Admin Options on those pages.
I'll try to contact cripto9t about incorporating the flagging of current topics part of his work into my work. It appears that no change is necessary to the T_ARCHIVE_FLAG in the TOPICS table for this to work.
Thank you for your input!
Etymon
< |
Edited by - Etymon on 19 December 2006 03:03:10 |
|
|
|
Etymon
Advanced Member
United States
2385 Posts |
Posted - 20 December 2006 : 08:02:26
|
No word from cripto9t as of yet ... I didn't see anything different in his code from what I had tried before. So I must have missed something when I was coding.
I'll rework that for version 1.0b
Etymon
< |
|
|
|
Etymon
Advanced Member
United States
2385 Posts |
Posted - 20 December 2006 : 09:22:46
|
| The demo has been updated.< |
|
|
|
skellyx
Starting Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 20 December 2006 : 10:26:22
|
I have a problem ( sob )
Choose a Forum from which to Archive a Topic
I choose a forum but:
Microsoft JET Database Engine error '80040e14'
Syntax error (missing operator) in query expression 'T.FORUM_ID = AND T.T_STATUS > 1'.
/scripts/cforum/inc_moderation.asp, line 72
Help me? 
Thank and kiss for Italy< |
|
|
|
Etymon
Advanced Member
United States
2385 Posts |
|
|
cripto9t
Average Member
USA
881 Posts |
Posted - 20 December 2006 : 15:30:27
|
Etymon feel free to use whatever you want from my mod. One thing about keeping the original id though. If you read through the post that Bitwise linked to, you will see that there were issues with preserving the original id. Ms sql needed some specific code to get around auto id. Also I read there is a slight chance of getting duplicate ids when bypassing auto id. I think your workaround with a new table is a better idea for an all around mod. Anyway thats my 2 cents .
< |
_-/Cripto9t\-_ |
|
|
|
skellyx
Starting Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 20 December 2006 : 15:32:05
|
Thank Etymon the first problem is resolved
archive topic is perfect
Un-Archive One Topic:
There are no replies to Un-Archive. (same error if there reply )
No replies were archived: None were found
Microsoft JET Database Engine error '80004005'
The field 'FORUM_TOPICS.T_ARCHIVE_FLAG' cannot contain a Null value because the Required property for this field is set to True. Enter a value in this field.
forum/admin_topics.asp, line 1065
I would want so much power to help but as woman I am better with the crotchet hook 
I can help only test the mod
Thank Etymon for the whole job that you do
Lory< |
|
|
|
Etymon
Advanced Member
United States
2385 Posts |
Posted - 21 December 2006 : 01:30:22
|
.zip file has been updated.
Thank you cripto9t. I'll go on with those things in mind. Thank you for letting me know about the potential problems.
Cheers,
Etyon
< |
|
|
|
skellyx
Starting Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 21 December 2006 : 06:04:05
|
update but
Only un-archive
Microsoft JET Database Engine error '80004005'
The field 'FORUM_REPLY.R_STATUS' cannot contain a Null value because the Required property for this field is set to True. Enter a value in this field.
cforum/admin_topics.asp, line 958
Sorry Etymon
if you can be useful I copy my screen :...........
Case "unarchivetopic"
Forum_SQL - SELECT a specific TOPIC_ID to Un-Archive from the FORUM_A_TOPICS (archives) table.
TOPIC_ID = 14549
strSql = SELECT A.FORUM_ID, A.TOPIC_ID, A.T_SUBJECT from FORUM_A_TOPICS A WHERE A.FORUM_ID = 57 ORDER BY T_SUBJECT ASC;
Sub subUnArchiveStuff()
Forum_SQL - SELECT each REPLY_ID to Un-Archive from FORUM_A_REPLY table according to its matching TOPIC_ID in the FORUM_A_TOPICS table.
Existing TOPIC_ID = 14549
strSql = SELECT FORUM_A_REPLY.* FROM FORUM_A_REPLY LEFT OUTER JOIN FORUM_A_TOPICS ON FORUM_A_REPLY.TOPIC_ID = FORUM_A_TOPICS.TOPIC_ID WHERE FORUM_A_REPLY.TOPIC_ID = 14549
Sub subUnArchiveStuff()
Total Replies to Un-Archive ...
There is 1 reply to Un-Archive.
- The next step is to INSERT a new REPLY_ID into the FORUM_REPLY table to take the place of each existing REPLY_ID in the FORUM_A_REPLY table.
Sub subUnArchiveStuff()
Forum_SQL - INSERT (create) a new REPLY_ID into the FORUM_REPLY table with only the R_DATE field populated for each original REPLY_ID from the FORUM_A_REPLY table.
Existing REPLY_ID = 295622
strSql = INSERT INTO FORUM_REPLY (R_DATE) VALUES ('20061221121200')
Microsoft JET Database Engine error '80004005'
The field 'FORUM_REPLY.R_STATUS' cannot contain a Null value because the Required property for this field is set to True. Enter a value in this field.
cforum/admin_topics.asp, line 958
< |
|
|
|
Etymon
Advanced Member
United States
2385 Posts |
Posted - 21 December 2006 : 09:27:08
|
Hi Lory,
On my test site I took a clean database from Snitz 3.4.06 and then installed the dbs_archive_one_topic_mod_1.0a.asp file. I posted a reply to the welcome message (that comes with Snitz). Then I archived the topic. It went well. Next, I un-archived the same topic. It went well.
The admin_topics.asp in the .zip file should be time stamped as 12/20/06 10:49 PM
What version of Snitz did your forum start from?< |
|
|
|
Etymon
Advanced Member
United States
2385 Posts |
Posted - 21 December 2006 : 11:58:50
|
Hi Lory,
I did some research.
It looks like Snitz databases from 3.4 to now use a default value of 0 for the R_STATUS field. The databases from before 3.4 don't use default value in the R_STATUS field.
I suspect that is the issue.
I'll work on the MOD later today with an Access database from before 3.4 and see what I can do for you to make it backwards compatible.
< |
|
|
|
Etymon
Advanced Member
United States
2385 Posts |
Posted - 21 December 2006 : 12:00:54
|
| Thank you serritzlev! < |
|
|
|
skellyx
Starting Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 21 December 2006 : 12:51:34
|
Ohhh Thankkkkkkkkkk
Etymon you are so much indeed kind
Hi
Lory< |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Archive One Topic MOD 1.0a
