Symphony.

@nick I’m impressed, the site even shows extensions that will be updated tomorrow!

(reminds me of the house of next tuesday)

Attachments:

backtothefuture.png

Hah, yeah, that was due to the fact that the date field in the form for adding an extension on this site was not really helpfull as to what the format of the date should be. When I initially submitted it it said "6 days from now" :D

@nick

Blank info on developer details. Original | Snapshot. I think it is related to the caching system.

It probably happends only on submitting new extensions until next site refresh. Not such a big deal.

Attachments:

it_makes_me_cry.jpg

I think this is a bug with hyphens in usernames. The API isn't matching you.

http://symphonyextensions.com/api/extensions/?username=vlag-ghita

Pretty sure this is a bug in way I've configured ElasticSearch. Will look this weekend.

The API isn't matching you.

Oh my ... Thanks for looking into it.

Blank info on developer details.

Same for me. My profile says I don't have any extensions. If I visit this page:

http://symphonyextensions.com/api/extensions/?username=eKoeS

it returns an empty set. If, on the other hand, I write my username in lowercase, it seems to work.

http://symphonyextensions.com/api/extensions/?username=ekoes

If you, yes you, aren't obsessed with the Symphony Extension site yet then you may want to see your doctor.

How did we ever live without this gem? It is simply the single biggest contribution to Symphony CMS since the beginning of time. Get on board now or drown*.

*If you're just taking a break and swimming with the dolphins, that's totally cool. We're okay with that, just get back to work now.

Are there plans to drop the extensions-section of this site in favour of the symphonyextensions.com? Or plans to integrate the API for that matter?

I find myself currently constantly guilty in adding extensions to symphonyextensions.com, but not in the extensions-section of the symphony website. And I think I'm not the only one...

Are there plans to drop the extensions-section of this site in favour of the symphonyextensions.com?

Yep! Once Symphony Factory is complete and the extensions site inherits the new styling, it will be more rightly integrated. The current extensions repository on this site will eventually disappear. Perhaps in the interim, like the Issues page, it should at least link out, or pull in the lates extensions via the API?

Yep!

Good to hear! Will there also be an automatic forum-post as soon as a new extension is pushed or updated?

Unlikely. It'd be nice for Symphony to notify you instead of a support forum...

@nickdunn

I published the Swtich extension and marked Symphony 2.2 being the minimum required. For Symphony 2.3 compatibility, this fails.

Shouldn't 2.3 be included as well since the minimum is 2.2?

2.3 was a breaking release for extensions, so if it works on either, it won't work on the other. Maximum would be 2.2, or minimum would be 2.3

@designermoneky

Aaaah, I remember now. The about function et all. But the issue still remains. If I state the compatibility for 2.x, then 2.(x+1) should be included.

The assumption is that compatibility breaks on each point release (2.1, 2.2, 2.3 etc). I'll need to look back over the (massively complex, scary) logic that works this out. But the assumption is that if you mark compatibility as 2.2 then this effectively means 2.2.x. I'll get back to you.

If I state the compatibility for 2.x, then 2.(x+1) should be included.

I don't really understand your issue here. In normal circumstances, yes, but as stated, 2.3 was a breaking release, so this is not a normal circumstance and you should declare it differently, as I stated above.

Confirmed from the code: if you set min to be 2.2 then this is taken as 2.2.0 and compatibility is assumed to be anything in the 2.2.x line. We don't assume an extension is always forwards compatible, not even to the next release (2.3).

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

I've noticed recently that using the keyword search doesn't seem to match for appropriate extensions within the site. For instance searching for "responsive" matches only 1 experimental extension but I've since found a couple of others at least which are very relevant and listed on the Symphony Extensions site. Searching for "RESS" also doesn't return anything even though both "responsive" and "RESS" are mentioned in their README files. How are the keywords matched?

Thanks for the heads up.

Currently only the extension name, extension description and developer username are searched. I removed the readme from the search index because it seemed to be reducing relevance. Almost all readme files are very likely to contain words such as "version", "extension", "date", "install", "email", "repository", "author", and potentially "section", "field", "page" and so on. Therefore searching for something like "date field" would yield wildly inaccurate results.

It might make sense for the owners of these extensions to file them under a new category such as "Responsive design" or similar.