Support

Account

Register Login

Forum Replies Created

  • just use bitbucket.org, you can have private projects for free (not like on github), works perfecly. My user is beee4life.

  • do you use git ?

  • I don’t think I found out… I removed the code and started again from scratch…

    I would be willing to help you take a look at it, but i’m at work now and I’m only available after 20:00 CET (in about 4 hours)

  • @tomhawkins yes I was….

    My raw rewrite file = http://pastebin.com/CP9BgfR0
    The site is not live hence why there are still commented functions and var_dumps in there. I still need to clean it before going live.

    There are a few ‘adult’ terms in there, just fyi….

  • This did it for me as well… I only had Timber activated and a private plugin.
    I deactivated both and updated the database. The message was then gone and I reactivated both plugins.

  • Got it….

    
$group      = get_page_by_title( 'ACF Group name', OBJECT, 'acf-field-group' );
$fields     = array();
$fields     = acf_get_fields( $group->ID );

// array of excluded field keys
$excluded_fields = array(
    'field_584c779a0114c',  
    'field_584c77690114b',  
    'field_584c67a239f35'   
);

$field_keys = array();
if ( $fields ) {
    foreach ( $fields as $field ) {
        if ( ! in_array( $field['key'], $excluded_fields ) ) {
            $field_keys[] = $field['key'];
        }
    }
}
// $fields_keys is an array with 'allowed' field keys which can be 'fed' into acf_form

  • Thanks, will investigate further.

  • Thanks for the feedback… I understand the idea, but what I’m mainly looking for is to get rid of the manual definition of field id’s since I feel it’s quite error prone. A typo is easily made. I’d like to make that generic/variable.

    I was thinking in the line of something like below. The functions might be wrong, but I think the idea is clear

    
function get_field_ids( $field_group_id ) {
    $all_fields = get_field_object();
    $field_keys = array();
    foreach ( $all_fields as $field ) {
        $field_keys[] = $field['key'];
    }
    return $field_keys;
}

    Then you can remove only the fields you don’t need from this array.
    It’s easily forgotten to add a new field ID, when you add fields to the field group.

    But I understand that it’s not possible (yet).

  • 2 questions following up on this:

    1. It has been announced in 2013 already that a ‘back-end’ only option would become available (in this topic). Am I unaware of this option ? If not, would you know the status of this ? Don’t know how your ‘connection’ to @elliot is…

    2. Is it (easily) possible to get an array of all field_keys for a certain field group ? And then just remove the keys you don’t want from this array.

    I think it’s easier to ‘remove’ (for example) 3 values than to list 20 fields which are allowed. Less fields = less possible errors.

  • Thanks for the confirmation… Didn’t think it was possible myself, but just checking…

  • All my (submitted) posts are submitted through a page, which holds the ACF form, which is ‘manipulated’ with an ID to create a new post or update an existing one.

  • Ah well, my code works so I’ll leave it as is…

    Do you know if, what I describe in my OP, is actually possible ?

  • I have found the culprit…. although I don’t understand quite why it interferes.

    This messed it all up:

    
function redirect_user_to( $redirect_to ) {
    global $current_user;
    wp_get_current_user();
    if ( ! current_user_can( 'manage_options' ) ) {
        $redirect_to = wp_redirect( home_url() . '/profile/' );
        exit;
    }
}
add_action( 'admin_init', 'redirect_user_to', 1 );

  • The affected roles are copies from the subscriber role which will be extended with 1 or 2 custom capabilities.

  • My thoughts exactly. I didn’t think it would check on something and certainly not manage_options.

    Adding items is not allowed, except by site admins so that won’t be related imho.

    Would you have an idea why the aforementioned function kills the dropdowns ??

  • For those who are interested in using the WP search to search for a value in a meta field, see the code below. Ofcourse adding 1 line to a form needs less code and is thus a lot less error prone.

    This is the search form. In my case I want to search for name only, so I added line 4 to uniquely identify this search form (so pre_get_posts won’t be applied to all search queries).

    
<form class="form form--search" action="" method="post">
    <fieldset>
        <div>
            <input type="hidden" name="name_search" value="1" />
            <input type="search" name="s" class="search__input" placeholder="Search for a name" />
            <button type="submit" class="button button--submit">Submit</button>
        </div>
    </fieldset>
</form>

    Then add this to functions.php:

    
function search_filter_for_name( $query ) {
    if ( ! is_admin() && $query->is_main_query() && isset( $_POST['name_search'] ) && 1 == $_POST['name_search'] ) {
        if ( $query->is_search ) {
            // set search string to false, otherwise the search searches in the_content() for this phrase and I want a specific field only
            $query->set( 's', false );
            // set your desired post type(s)
            $query->set( 'post_type', array( 'your_post_type' ) );

            // set the meta query for your specific field
            $query->set( 'meta_query', array(
                'key'       => 'field_name',
                'value'     => $query->query['s']
            ) );
        }
    }
}
add_action( 'pre_get_posts', 'search_filter_for_name' );

    my initial question still stands

  • kudos @0000000000
    I had no need yet for a taxonomy with more than 1 allowed option but I bet some people will make good use of it 😉

  • it does… thanks…

  • I did notice the following…

    I entered a bunch of labels : values
    For some the label is the same as the value.
    After saving the option where the label was equal to the value was shown as a single value in the field groups settings.

    Is that something which is done automatically ?
    Never noticed this…

  • No I don’t have any issues (yet)… I started building my site in my native language (Dutch) when I realised I needed to have it in English anyway so I wanted to base it of of English, so had to redo everything 🙂

    Which is not a prob since it’s not online yet. Just didn’t wanna do work and then find out it’s wrong.

  • I’m not claiming my solution is the best. It is what I came up with to ‘overcome’ the serialized problem and I’m happy it works.

    I have to look deeper into your solution. It does seem interesting. And I have to admit, I miscalculated. I counted all fields in a group instead of just the checkboxes, which is only 2 or 3…. so that would mean a significant difference in amount of rows.

  • So if I would have let’s say 30 fields per post (of which at least 15 are obligated) and I have 1000 posts, that means I would have another (15 fields x 1000 posts =) 15000 extra table rows ???

  • @hube2 I like the idea, but will there be a different row for just each checkbox value (defined in ACF field groups) or will there be an extra row for each checkbox field in each post ?

  • Not sure if this would work for you but Ultimate WP Query Search Filter has a nice search feature (incl. ajax results).

    For checkboxes, you need a work around, as described here.

  • @rockgeek may I advise you to look into Ultimate WP Query Search Filter ?

    That works real nice out of the box, except it has some issues with checkboxes, because UWPQSF expects a single value and not a serialized array, but I found a solution for it, which I posted on my site.

    I’m not sure if this would work for you but it’s definitely worth looking into.

Viewing 25 posts - 226 through 250 (of 291 total)
1 2 3 … 9 10 11 12