Quantcast

Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma

Dan Wilga-2
It's been almost a year, but I finally got to go back to this, and I think I'm finished. It's currently still in the recycle-bin-rework branch. Here's a summary of the changes:

Let's say there are two pages, "Page One" and "Page Two". Both contain the same piece of content, "Article X". If "Page One" is moved to a recycle bin, "Article X" will continue to appear on "Page Two". If the bin is eventually emptied, the content will still appear on "Page Two". Previously, the act of recycling "Page One" would cause "Article X" to be put into a second bin relative to "Page Two", which would get automatically deleted after 30 days; this is no longer the case.

Now, let's assume the same starting condition as above. When attempting to move "Article X" (just the content, not the entire page) to the recycle bin, the user is asked if they would like to remove it from just the current page or from all pages. The confirmation message that appears before the user permanently deletes a piece of content already in a bin has also been improved, to better describe what will happen to the content, and whether it will still be visible elsewhere.

There are two new functions:

  mm_content_move_from_bin()
  mm_content_remove_node_from_page()

Also:

  mm_content_move_to_bin() can now accept an associative array, to indicate which pages each node should be removed from

I also added a permissions test script which does something like 250,000 tests. I'm not sure how I feel about including such a huge file (4.5M), when so few people would ever use it, but having it live in git is the best way to be able to see how the expected test results change when the code does.

On 9/25/14 10:07 AM, Adam Franco wrote:
Jay hit it on the head:
"taking an action on page Bar shouldn’t have an implicit side-effect on page Baz."

Adding a checkbox to allow deleting a node (or all nodes on a page) from all other pages would be a reasonable way to allow side-effects on other pages, but that shouldn't be the default behavior.


Adam

--

Adam Franco
Senior Software Engineer - Web Applications
Library and Information Services
Middlebury College
Middlebury, VT 05753
[hidden email]
802.443.2244

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Hilary Caws-Elwitt <[hidden email]> wrote:
I second option #1; the checkbox would be a great addition to that.


·         #1 because from the user point of view, each node appearance is independent. Only when the last one is removed should the node actually disappear from view.

·         Checkbox because from the content creator point of view, maybe I’m deleting something outdated and I’ve forgotten it’s also showing on other pages.

--
Hilary Caws-Elwitt
IT Analyst - Five Colleges, Inc. - http://www.fivecolleges.edu<http://www.fivecolleges.edu/>
97 Spring St, Amherst MA 01002
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> - <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:413-542-4022" value="+14135424022">413-542-4022

From: Jay Dansand [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:57 PM
To: Monster Menus Development
Subject: RE: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma

So, if I understand it correctly, with the current behavior:


1)    Node “Foo” appears on pages “Bar” and “Baz”.

2)    (with bins enabled) If you delete the node from Bar, then it is also removed from Baz, and placed into recycling bins under both Bar and Baz.

3)    If you empty Bar’s recycling bin, then the node still exists in Baz’s recycling bin.

I think the intent of our votes for #2 in the previous question was that taking an action on page Bar shouldn’t have an implicit side-effect on page Baz.  At least, that was my argument.  In this case, the current behavior is almost perfect, but I’d vote in favor of option #1: deleting the node on Bar does not remove it from Baz. Perhaps there should be a checkbox on mm_ui_node_delete_confirm that asks “Should this node be removed from all other pages as well?” in which case the current behavior (separate, disconnected recycling bins) takes over.

As far as the current no-bin behavior goes, that’s actually a problem for us and we’re planning to write another mm_tweak to prompt for permanently deleting the node from all pages or just remove the reference from the current page.  Or, if you all would be onboard with changing that behavior upstream, it’d make it more consistent with the current (or proposed change #1) behavior when using bins… ☺

--
Jay Dansand '08
Senior Web Application Developer
Technology Services, Seeley G. Mudd Library
Lawrence University
Appleton, WI
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:920-832-6585" value="+19208326585">920-832-6585
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
From: Dan Wilga [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:12 PM
To: Monster Menus Development
Subject: Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma

There's a corollary to the original question:

When Page A and Page B contain the same node and THE NODE is permanently deleted (without using a bin), it disappears from both pages.

If bins are used, then deleting THE NODE causes two bins to be created, both of which contain the node. If either bin is emptied, the node remains in the other bin, and can potentially be restored.

1. Should only one bin be created, and the node left visible on the other page?

2. Or should emptying either bin delete the node in both places, for consistency with the no-bin case? I think this would also be more consistent with #2, below.

On 9/18/14 10:26 AM, Dan Wilga wrote:
There's an issue that was raised quite some time ago:

  https://www.drupal.org/node/1890488

It details a difference, which may not seem entirely intuitive, in the way deletion occurs when recycle bins are being used vs. not used.

When Page A and Page B contain the same node and Page A is permanently deleted (without using a bin), the node remains on Page B.

If bins are used, then two bins are created: one contains Page A and the node, the other just the node. The node is no longer visible on Page B, even though that page is not in the bin. Both bins must be emptied for the node to be completely deleted.

To try this out for yourself, paste the attached PHP code into devel/php. Then, go to x/a/b and either delete it permanently or move it to the recycle bin. (See admin/mm/settings, in the General section. Set " Automatic recycle bin deletion interval" to either a value or "don't use recycle bins".)

The question is: Should this be made more consistent and, if so, in which direction? Choose one:

1. Change the no-bin case to immediately delete the node from Page B. This is probably not ideal, since it's more destructive than the current behavior. A warning message could include references to the other affected pages.

2. Change the way adding a page to the bin works, such that the node remains visible on Page B, and only the Page A reference is in the bin. Emptying the bin just removes the Page A reference, and leaves the node on Page B intact. A warning message, though likely confusing, could accompany this situation, either at the point where the page is placed into the bin or when emptying.

3. Leave things as they are now, and perhaps add more specific warnings.


---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685503.6b071f880fe6a965a128164e6d09ea81&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=719624

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma

McBride, Ian S.

Dan,


This sounds like a significant improvement. We have a lot of faculty profiles that are shown on multiple department sites, some on their own sub-page. These sub-pages occasionally get deleted when the faculty go on leave or drop courses that cross disciplines. Alerting our editors that doing so impacts other pages on the site will be very helpful.


While thinking about this, I'm reminded of a small change that would be useful on the logging associated with Recycling content. Could the watchdog messages be updated from:


watchdog('mm', 'Recycled node=:nid from mmtid=:mmtid to bin=:bin', array(':nid' => $nid, ':mmtid' => $mmtid, ':bin' => $bin));

to:

watchdog('mm', 'Recycled node=:nid from mmtid=:mmtid to bin=:bin by :user', array(':nid' => $nid, ':mmtid' => $mmtid, ':bin' => $bin, ':user' => $user->uid));

There have been a couple times this year when having that bit of extra information would be helpful. I can roll a patch, if you'd like.



Ian McBride
Web Technologies & Services
Middlebury College



From: Dan Wilga <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 3:00 PM
To: Monster Menus Development
Subject: Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma
 
It's been almost a year, but I finally got to go back to this, and I think I'm finished. It's currently still in the recycle-bin-rework branch. Here's a summary of the changes:

Let's say there are two pages, "Page One" and "Page Two". Both contain the same piece of content, "Article X". If "Page One" is moved to a recycle bin, "Article X" will continue to appear on "Page Two". If the bin is eventually emptied, the content will still appear on "Page Two". Previously, the act of recycling "Page One" would cause "Article X" to be put into a second bin relative to "Page Two", which would get automatically deleted after 30 days; this is no longer the case.

Now, let's assume the same starting condition as above. When attempting to move "Article X" (just the content, not the entire page) to the recycle bin, the user is asked if they would like to remove it from just the current page or from all pages. The confirmation message that appears before the user permanently deletes a piece of content already in a bin has also been improved, to better describe what will happen to the content, and whether it will still be visible elsewhere.

There are two new functions:

  mm_content_move_from_bin()
  mm_content_remove_node_from_page()

Also:

  mm_content_move_to_bin() can now accept an associative array, to indicate which pages each node should be removed from

I also added a permissions test script which does something like 250,000 tests. I'm not sure how I feel about including such a huge file (4.5M), when so few people would ever use it, but having it live in git is the best way to be able to see how the expected test results change when the code does.

On 9/25/14 10:07 AM, Adam Franco wrote:
Jay hit it on the head:
"taking an action on page Bar shouldn’t have an implicit side-effect on page Baz."

Adding a checkbox to allow deleting a node (or all nodes on a page) from all other pages would be a reasonable way to allow side-effects on other pages, but that shouldn't be the default behavior.


Adam

--

Adam Franco
Senior Software Engineer - Web Applications
Library and Information Services
Middlebury College
Middlebury, VT 05753
[hidden email]
802.443.2244

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Hilary Caws-Elwitt <[hidden email]> wrote:
I second option #1; the checkbox would be a great addition to that.


·         #1 because from the user point of view, each node appearance is independent. Only when the last one is removed should the node actually disappear from view.

·         Checkbox because from the content creator point of view, maybe I’m deleting something outdated and I’ve forgotten it’s also showing on other pages.

--
Hilary Caws-Elwitt
IT Analyst - Five Colleges, Inc. - http://www.fivecolleges.edu<http://www.fivecolleges.edu/>
97 Spring St, Amherst MA 01002
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email][hidden email]> - <a href="tel:413-542-4022" value="&#43;14135424022">413-542-4022

From: Jay Dansand [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:57 PM
To: Monster Menus Development
Subject: RE: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma

So, if I understand it correctly, with the current behavior:


1)    Node “Foo” appears on pages “Bar” and “Baz”.

2)    (with bins enabled) If you delete the node from Bar, then it is also removed from Baz, and placed into recycling bins under both Bar and Baz.

3)    If you empty Bar’s recycling bin, then the node still exists in Baz’s recycling bin.

I think the intent of our votes for #2 in the previous question was that taking an action on page Bar shouldn’t have an implicit side-effect on page Baz.  At least, that was my argument.  In this case, the current behavior is almost perfect, but I’d vote in favor of option #1: deleting the node on Bar does not remove it from Baz. Perhaps there should be a checkbox on mm_ui_node_delete_confirm that asks “Should this node be removed from all other pages as well?” in which case the current behavior (separate, disconnected recycling bins) takes over.

As far as the current no-bin behavior goes, that’s actually a problem for us and we’re planning to write another mm_tweak to prompt for permanently deleting the node from all pages or just remove the reference from the current page.  Or, if you all would be onboard with changing that behavior upstream, it’d make it more consistent with the current (or proposed change #1) behavior when using bins… ☺

--
Jay Dansand '08
Senior Web Application Developer
Technology Services, Seeley G. Mudd Library
Lawrence University
Appleton, WI
<a href="tel:920-832-6585" value="&#43;19208326585">920-832-6585
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email][hidden email]>
From: Dan Wilga [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:12 PM
To: Monster Menus Development
Subject: Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma

There's a corollary to the original question:

When Page A and Page B contain the same node and THE NODE is permanently deleted (without using a bin), it disappears from both pages.

If bins are used, then deleting THE NODE causes two bins to be created, both of which contain the node. If either bin is emptied, the node remains in the other bin, and can potentially be restored.

1. Should only one bin be created, and the node left visible on the other page?

2. Or should emptying either bin delete the node in both places, for consistency with the no-bin case? I think this would also be more consistent with #2, below.

On 9/18/14 10:26 AM, Dan Wilga wrote:
There's an issue that was raised quite some time ago:

  https://www.drupal.org/node/1890488

It details a difference, which may not seem entirely intuitive, in the way deletion occurs when recycle bins are being used vs. not used.

When Page A and Page B contain the same node and Page A is permanently deleted (without using a bin), the node remains on Page B.

If bins are used, then two bins are created: one contains Page A and the node, the other just the node. The node is no longer visible on Page B, even though that page is not in the bin. Both bins must be emptied for the node to be completely deleted.

To try this out for yourself, paste the attached PHP code into devel/php. Then, go to x/a/b and either delete it permanently or move it to the recycle bin. (See admin/mm/settings, in the General section. Set " Automatic recycle bin deletion interval" to either a value or "don't use recycle bins".)

The question is: Should this be made more consistent and, if so, in which direction? Choose one:

1. Change the no-bin case to immediately delete the node from Page B. This is probably not ideal, since it's more destructive than the current behavior. A warning message could include references to the other affected pages.

2. Change the way adding a page to the bin works, such that the node remains visible on Page B, and only the Page A reference is in the bin. Emptying the bin just removes the Page A reference, and leaves the node on Page B intact. A warning message, though likely confusing, could accompany this situation, either at the point where the page is placed into the bin or when emptying.

3. Leave things as they are now, and perhaps add more specific warnings.


---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=719624

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]

---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685503.6b071f880fe6a965a128164e6d09ea81&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=719815

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma

Dan Wilga-2
In reply to this post by Dan Wilga-2
On 8/31/15 9:46 AM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:
While thinking about this, I'm reminded of a small change that would be useful on the logging associated with Recycling content. Could the watchdog messages be updated from:


watchdog('mm', 'Recycled node=:nid from mmtid=:mmtid to bin=:bin', array(':nid' => $nid, ':mmtid' => $mmtid, ':bin' => $bin));

to:

watchdog('mm', 'Recycled node=:nid from mmtid=:mmtid to bin=:bin by :user', array(':nid' => $nid, ':mmtid' => $mmtid, ':bin' => $bin, ':user' => $user->uid));

Why not just use the uid column in the watchdog table?

---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685503.6b071f880fe6a965a128164e6d09ea81&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=719822

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma

McBride, Ian S.
In reply to this post by Dan Wilga-2

Good call. I guess I didn't notice that before, but it is getting reported through syslog.



From: Dan Wilga <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 10:15 AM
To: Monster Menus Development
Subject: Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma
 
On 8/31/15 9:46 AM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:
While thinking about this, I'm reminded of a small change that would be useful on the logging associated with Recycling content. Could the watchdog messages be updated from:


watchdog('mm', 'Recycled node=:nid from mmtid=:mmtid to bin=:bin', array(':nid' => $nid, ':mmtid' => $mmtid, ':bin' => $bin));

to:

watchdog('mm', 'Recycled node=:nid from mmtid=:mmtid to bin=:bin by :user', array(':nid' => $nid, ':mmtid' => $mmtid, ':bin' => $bin, ':user' => $user->uid));

Why not just use the uid column in the watchdog table?

---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=719822

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]

---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685503.6b071f880fe6a965a128164e6d09ea81&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=719837

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma

Dan Wilga-2
In reply to this post by Dan Wilga-2
If you look in places like the user module, the basic Drupal core philosophy seems to be to only include a user ID in the variables of a watchdog message when it couldn't be derived from the uid column. So I'm afraid I'd rather not add this (tiny) bit of bloat to any messages in MM.

On 8/31/15 12:00 PM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:

Good call. I guess I didn't notice that before, but it is getting reported through syslog.



From: Dan Wilga [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 10:15 AM
To: Monster Menus Development
Subject: Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma
 
On 8/31/15 9:46 AM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:
While thinking about this, I'm reminded of a small change that would be useful on the logging associated with Recycling content. Could the watchdog messages be updated from:


watchdog('mm', 'Recycled node=:nid from mmtid=:mmtid to bin=:bin', array(':nid' => $nid, ':mmtid' => $mmtid, ':bin' => $bin));

to:

watchdog('mm', 'Recycled node=:nid from mmtid=:mmtid to bin=:bin by :user', array(':nid' => $nid, ':mmtid' => $mmtid, ':bin' => $bin, ':user' => $user->uid));

Why not just use the uid column in the watchdog table?

---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=719822

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]

---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685500.19fa7de7038497527f6a88cf1629251d&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=719837

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]


---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685503.6b071f880fe6a965a128164e6d09ea81&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=719843

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma

McBride, Ian S.
In reply to this post by Dan Wilga-2

Oh, after you pointed out that it's being included, just not in the message, I completely agree. I think my trouble was that we only keep the logs around for a couple months and someone wanted to know who deleted some content over a year ago. I'm fine with continuing to tell people that I can't answer that question, but they have full control over who can edit/delete their content and can change it if they like, thanks to MM.



From: Dan Wilga <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:59 PM
To: Monster Menus Development
Subject: Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma
 
If you look in places like the user module, the basic Drupal core philosophy seems to be to only include a user ID in the variables of a watchdog message when it couldn't be derived from the uid column. So I'm afraid I'd rather not add this (tiny) bit of bloat to any messages in MM.

On 8/31/15 12:00 PM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:

Good call. I guess I didn't notice that before, but it is getting reported through syslog.



From: Dan Wilga [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 10:15 AM
To: Monster Menus Development
Subject: Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma
 
On 8/31/15 9:46 AM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:
While thinking about this, I'm reminded of a small change that would be useful on the logging associated with Recycling content. Could the watchdog messages be updated from:


watchdog('mm', 'Recycled node=:nid from mmtid=:mmtid to bin=:bin', array(':nid' => $nid, ':mmtid' => $mmtid, ':bin' => $bin));

to:

watchdog('mm', 'Recycled node=:nid from mmtid=:mmtid to bin=:bin by :user', array(':nid' => $nid, ':mmtid' => $mmtid, ':bin' => $bin, ':user' => $user->uid));

Why not just use the uid column in the watchdog table?

---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email][hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=719822

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]

---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email][hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685500.19fa7de7038497527f6a88cf1629251d&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=719837

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]


---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=719843

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]

---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685503.6b071f880fe6a965a128164e6d09ea81&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=719844

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma

Dan Wilga-2
In reply to this post by Dan Wilga-2
Cool. I was concerned from your message that you were still asking for its inclusion.

On 8/31/15 1:02 PM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:

Oh, after you pointed out that it's being included, just not in the message, I completely agree. I think my trouble was that we only keep the logs around for a couple months and someone wanted to know who deleted some content over a year ago. I'm fine with continuing to tell people that I can't answer that question, but they have full control over who can edit/delete their content and can change it if they like, thanks to MM.



From: Dan Wilga [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:59 PM
To: Monster Menus Development
Subject: Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma
 
If you look in places like the user module, the basic Drupal core philosophy seems to be to only include a user ID in the variables of a watchdog message when it couldn't be derived from the uid column. So I'm afraid I'd rather not add this (tiny) bit of bloat to any messages in MM.

On 8/31/15 12:00 PM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:

Good call. I guess I didn't notice that before, but it is getting reported through syslog.



From: Dan Wilga [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 10:15 AM
To: Monster Menus Development
Subject: Re: I'd like your opinions on a deletion dilemma
 
On 8/31/15 9:46 AM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:
While thinking about this, I'm reminded of a small change that would be useful on the logging associated with Recycling content. Could the watchdog messages be updated from:


watchdog('mm', 'Recycled node=:nid from mmtid=:mmtid to bin=:bin', array(':nid' => $nid, ':mmtid' => $mmtid, ':bin' => $bin));

to:

watchdog('mm', 'Recycled node=:nid from mmtid=:mmtid to bin=:bin by :user', array(':nid' => $nid, ':mmtid' => $mmtid, ':bin' => $bin, ':user' => $user->uid));

Why not just use the uid column in the watchdog table?


---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685503.6b071f880fe6a965a128164e6d09ea81&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=719847

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]

Loading...