Support Forum

Please review sp_OnlineStats, sp_page_next, sp_page_previous, and sp_page_url

KW Ken Wilson
Ken Wilson
Member

Please review the updated Codex pages listed below. Whomever reviews a page, please indicate it is ready to publish or list the additional work required to make it ready to publish. 

sp_OnlineStats;
1. Ready to publish after review and concurrence.
2. ‘get’ => 0 added to ‘args’
3. ‘get’ and ‘echo’ have standardized definitions.
4. ‘link_name’  has standardized definition from sp_NewMembers modified to just say members.
5. ‘usersOnly’ definition expanded and becoming the standard.  Please review and concur.
6. added “members or members and” to description to result in, “…, and members or members and guests online.”
5. General format updates.

sp_page_next;
1. Ready to publish after review and concurrence.
2. Usage:  $search changed to $search=”, to match code. (Please see item 3 in sp_page_url, below). 
3. Usage: $ug=” added to match code. (Please see item 3 in sp_page_url, below). 
4. General format updates including adding all the standard headings.

sp_page_prev;
1. Ready to publish after review and concurrence.
2. Usage:  $search changed to $search=”, to match code. (Please see item 3 in sp_page_url, below). 
3. Usage: $ug=” added to match code. (Please see item 3 in sp_page_url, below). 
4. General format updates including adding all the standard headings.

sp_page_url;
1. Ready to publish after review, resolution of question, and concurrence.
2. Usage: , $ug added to match code. 
3. Question: In the sp_page_url code the function does not have $search’=”, $ug=” as sp_page_next and sp_page_prev do.  Should all 3 be consistent? If so, which one(s) are correct?  Which Codex revision pages, if any, need to change?
4. General format updates including adding all the standard headings.

3 Answers

New Answer

MP Mr Papa
Mr Papa
Member

published online stats…

question answer…  no, they are not common…  page prev and page next are common, but not url… in fact, prev and next call url…

problem…  the three ‘page’ pages are missing argument definitions… you state that ‘Not Applicable’, but that’s incorrect…  they dont have $args and defaults, but they still have other arguments that need defining… look at some of the others you have done…

KW Ken Wilson
Ken Wilson
Member

Thanks for the reviews.  Ok, I’ll go back to those ‘page’ pages.  I mistakenly assumed because the original pages hadn’t made any attempt to provide definitions, they were to be omitted intentionally.