OsCommerce v 2.3 - when?

[foxp2]

XHTML Transitional (Front Office) : download

[MrPhil]

I did download ver 2.3 to look through it, as one might say, some window shopping. Looking in the admin, yes file_manager has been removed but I do see define_language still there. Or is it that my eyes are deceiving me?

Indeed, it is still there. I thought they had removed it, since the 2.2 version is considered a security hazard, and the advice is always to remove it and file_manager. Well, maybe someone went through and cleaned up define_language.php (I hope so). It's got a lot of code differences with RC2a.

 

"Never mind!" -- Emily Litella

[spoofy]

XHTML Transitional (Front Office) : download

 

Thanks a lot!

[scandic_outlet]

XHTML Transitional (Front Office) : download

Hi - di you see my posts about the security warnings from your demo site?

[foxp2]

Hi - di you see my posts about the security warnings from your demo site?

did you understood this report ? [ i think not ]

[scandic_outlet]

did you understood this report ? [ i think not ]

no i did not understand it, however, i posted it to you, in case it was a concern to you.

I have never seen such message before when visiting any other oscommerce site?

 

if you understand it, would you care to enlighten me?

 

Thanks.

Michael

[npn2531]

Yes, maybe you could just explain this report, instead of posting a link, I think anyone who got an official warning about malware at your site would be really hesistant to blindly click on a link you post here. I got the same warning about your site being 'harmful to visit'.

[foxp2]

no i did not understand it, however, i posted it to you, in case it was a concern to you.

I have never seen such message before when visiting any other oscommerce site?

 

if you understand it, would you care to enlighten me?

 

Thanks.

Michael

 

 

Yes, maybe you could just explain this report, instead of posting a link, I think anyone who got an official warning about malware at your site would be really hesistant to blindly click on a link you post here. I got the same warning about your site being 'harmful to visit'.

 

 

LinkScanner® Online did not find any exploits.

 

 

 

[scandic_outlet]

LinkScanner® Online did not find any exploits.

 

strange - i looked at the error message from Norton, but cant really understand the issue. Could it be serve related, if you site is hosted on a shared server, where some other url's might have a problem?

[spoofy]

The issue is very simple. Norton is flawed. Norton assume fr.nf is a top level domain and any sub-domain on it would cause a warning. Chances are someone ran a malware site in the past on x.fr.nf (x being a variable). So now Norton believes that all fr.nf are unsafe. I hope that makes sense.

 

Also just to clarify there are no malware or any issues on foxp2's site

[scandic_outlet]

The issue is very simple. Norton is flawed. Norton assume fr.nf is a top level domain and any sub-domain on it would cause a warning. Chances are someone ran a malware site in the past on x.fr.nf (x being a variable). So now Norton believes that all fr.nf are unsafe. I hope that makes sense.

 

Also just to clarify there are no malware or any issues on foxp2's site

Thats awesome, so it was something like i suggested.

I must say Foxp2's site looks impressive out of the box.

[Mark Evans]

Many of the bugs reported for 2.3 are in the process of being fixed. If there are any others please post reports in the bug tracker and we will get on and investigate them.

 

Please provide as much detail as possible so that we can reproduce any bugs found.

 

Thanks for helping make the 2.3 release as stable as possible!

[Mark Evans]

2) with error_reporting(E_ALL | E_STRICT) I get this error adding products to the cart.

 

This should be fixed with a change I just committed

 

http://github.com/oscsparky/oscommerce2/commit/0745c8cbab69b02e87250dab85e235d62ecdfe70

[Mark Evans]

We are running out of open 2.3 bugs, I challenge people to find more as my bug eater is still hungry!

[spoofy]

did you understood this report ? [ i think not ]

 

 

Hey,

 

Thanks for sharing. Just one quick question. In header.php there is:

$template_dir = tep_get_template(); 

 

It gives an error so I had to comment it out. What was that for? Please let me know.

 

Thanks

[spoofy]

We are running out of open 2.3 bugs, I challenge people to find more as my bug eater is still hungry!

 

Mark,

 

I am not sure if you are open to discussion here, but I noticed something pretty odd.

 

Some of the javascript code resides within the <body> tag since there is template_top.

 

For instance, in advanced_search, much of the javascript code for check_form and pop_up code is in the body.

 

In my opinion it needs to go within the head tag. I propose a solution such as defining $header_extra_tags variable in all files and then calling that variable in tamplate_top

[foxp2]

Hey,

 

Thanks for sharing. Just one quick question. In header.php there is:

$template_dir = tep_get_template(); 

 

It gives an error so I had to comment it out. What was that for? Please let me know.

 

Thanks

 

tep_get_template() is a function to list each template and push in an array.

used by this drop down :

 

[spoofy]

tep_get_template() is a function to list each template and push in an array.

used by this drop down :

oh ok

 

how do i get the code for that?

 

thanks

[Hotclutch]

Mark,

 

I am not sure if you are open to discussion here, but I noticed something pretty odd.

 

Some of the javascript code resides within the <body> tag since there is template_top.

 

For instance, in advanced_search, much of the javascript code for check_form and pop_up code is in the body.

 

In my opinion it needs to go within the head tag. I propose a solution such as defining $header_extra_tags variable in all files and then calling that variable in tamplate_top

 

If you take that javascript in advanced_search.php and remove it to template top, including the

 

<script type="text/javascript">

$("#headerShortcuts").buttonset();

</script>

 

it tests OK. I don't think having that call on every page is ideal though.

[Hotclutch]

If you take that javascript in advanced_search.php and remove it to template top, including the

 

<script type="text/javascript">

$("#headerShortcuts").buttonset();

</script>

 

it tests OK. I don't think having that call on every page is ideal though.

 

The javascript for the V2.3 buttons are also causing some conflicts with things like "fancypics" popups.

[spoofy]

If you take that javascript in advanced_search.php and remove it to template top, including the

 

<script type="text/javascript">

$("#headerShortcuts").buttonset();

</script>

 

it tests OK. I don't think having that call on every page is ideal though.

Yeah but thats a "hack" instead of a solution.

[Mark Evans]

Some of the javascript code resides within the <body> tag since there is template_top.

 

For instance, in advanced_search, much of the javascript code for check_form and pop_up code is in the body.

 

In my opinion it needs to go within the head tag. I propose a solution such as defining $header_extra_tags variable in all files and then calling that variable in tamplate_top

 

Is there a specific reason you would want all the JS to be in the head?

[Hotclutch]

I also keep all my javascript within the head (on V2.2), i think HTML validation requires it that way. Also all

 

<script language="javascript"> should be replaced with

 

<script type="text/javascript">

[spoofy]

Is there a specific reason you would want all the JS to be in the head?

 

All the javascript code should go in head unless the code has to read/write or alter something within the body.

 

Apart from validation and correct usage, the code loaded in the <head> tag loads before the page is loaded and ready before it loads.

[MrPhil]

Ideally, simply from the point of code cleanliness, all JS function definitions and global initializations should be up in the <head> section. Only "in-line" (immediately executable) code (as well as "on___" tag attributes) should be in the <body>. If you use a common "top of page" code to create the <head> section, you need a way to insert different JS code for different pages, rather than including everything on every page (see @spoofy's suggestion).