|
|
 Rank: Devotee
Joined: 3/19/2008 Posts: 52 Location: London
|
Hi,
[EDIT] Tested in version 3.0.5
I searched the forum for a post like this because I was sure someone would have had this issue before. So far I haven't found anything mentioning it.
This seems to be umbraco standard behaviour, but I am wondering if it might be a good idea to add some more options.
These two situations are affected by the issue I'm describing:
1. When right clicking the site root and choosing "republish entire site"
2. if one right-clicks a site node and chooses the publish option and checks the "publish all children" checkbox
For case 1, all of the unpublished nodes in the site are published [EDIT - this was subsequently proved not to be true. See rest of post for details. @neilf]
For case 2, all unpublished nodes below the selected node are published.
I'm writing this post because in a very large site with lots of content, I think that behaviour needs another choice such as "Publish all (including unpublished)" or just "republish pages that are already published" if that makes sense.
The reason being that editors on a large site had only saved some pages while they refined their content and did spell-checking etc. They wanted to spell check and save each page in a section before publishing them together. Now assuming we have a good process in place and there is only one editor role defined, even then the editor might have to publish pages one-by-one in case there was unfinished work in a branch below. Now if anyone had a less forgiving setup where more than one person could publish, you could see how accidents might happen when someone did a batch publish action...
Make sense? Any comments?
Neil
Disclaimer: Projectstream Ltd (UK) and its directors make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information provided in the Umbraco Forum and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis and is for informational purposes only.
That being said, if you think I'm mad then please tell me. Alternatively if you think I've been really helpful thats wonderful.
|
|
 Rank: Fanatic
Joined: 8/9/2007 Posts: 284 Location: Kentucky, USA
|
Neil, I agree with you. I have raised this issue before.
Pete Koutoulas • Fayette County Public Schools • Lexington, Kentucky
|
|
 Rank: Devotee
Joined: 6/6/2008 Posts: 83 Location: Barling Magna
|
I understand the point but I think the reason it doesn't (and possibly couldn't) work like this if is a page is created, published and then modified and saved (still with me?) then it would appear as a published item and so would get published even with a 'only publish previously published content' option.
clear as mud?
|
|
 Rank: Addict
Joined: 3/17/2008 Posts: 982 Location: Nyborg, Denmark
|
Can you confirm that the "Republish entire site" actually publish unpublished content? The only thing it does it refreshing the cache (rebuilding the xml index), so that sounds odd to me (I never experienced it, but if anyone has it's a major bug)?
What I hear you want is a "publish all changes to pages that are already published" - is that correct?
/n
Jeeeez, did I really start this :-)
|
|
 Rank: Devotee
Joined: 3/19/2008 Posts: 52 Location: London
|
Hi Niels, Thanks for following up. We had recently deployed a new site and I relayed what the editors had passed on about publishing the pages. I've done a local test on a 3.0.5 instance and from my personal observation confirm that "Republish entire site" DOES NOT publish unpublished content even though the editor insisted this is what happened. I suspect what the editor had confused was the "Publish" option off the homepage and expected the same behaviour. Code:The site structure:
Content - Homepage - Section 1 - subsection - .... - ......
- Section 2 - ...... - ......
- .....
So I confirm there's no bug with the publish entire site option - at least as much as I have tested on a local 3.0.5 copy. It behaves the way it should and from what I understand it technically just refreshes the /data/umbraco.config file. However I think the user confused the "Republish entire site" option off the "Content" node with the "Publish" menu of the Homepage page. The "Publish" option is recursive when you check the "Publish all child nodes" and the DEFINITELY DOES publish EVERYTHING, whether it was originally published or not. So if I rephrase, my suggested change would be for the "Publish" right-click menu option to have 1 more option to complement the one that it has now: - Publish all children - only republish changes for pages that are already published (2nd option disabled until "Publish all children" checked) I know it might be confusing for new users, thats the best wording that I can think of that would explain unpublished pages wouldn't be made "live". If you think its a good idea, I'll gladly type up a codeplex change request for that. For reference here is the site running on an Umbraco 3.0.5 load balanced installed: http://www.peabody.org.ukI tried a few scenarios on a test copy by creating a new account and only giving it access from the Homepage node. If I do that, the "Publish entire site" option is not available because the Content node is hidden and even the "Publish" right-click menu option is not shown anymore. The only choices are Create | Sort | Reload nodes. So that is one workaround for now - if anyone tried a recursive "Publish", it can only start from one of the "Section ..." nodes. Although that means that only the administrator can refresh the cache if that is ever needed.
Neil Disclaimer: Projectstream Ltd (UK) and its directors make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information provided in the Umbraco Forum and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis and is for informational purposes only.
That being said, if you think I'm mad then please tell me. Alternatively if you think I've been really helpful thats wonderful.
|
|
 Rank: Addict
Joined: 3/17/2008 Posts: 982 Location: Nyborg, Denmark
|
Could you add this one to Codeplex and then promote it so it can get votes? If enough people vote for it, I'll implement it (I like your idea of the UI). Thanks for the thorough feedback!
Jeeeez, did I really start this :-)
|
|
 Rank: Devotee
Joined: 3/19/2008 Posts: 52 Location: London
|
And I apologise for the first post and the title which have turned out to be partly incorrect. The person who reported this has been using Umbraco for more than 6 months so I trusted it was as they said... that will teach me to believe anything... "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." ~ Delo McKown
Neil Disclaimer: Projectstream Ltd (UK) and its directors make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information provided in the Umbraco Forum and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis and is for informational purposes only.
That being said, if you think I'm mad then please tell me. Alternatively if you think I've been really helpful thats wonderful.
|
|
 Rank: Addict
Joined: 3/17/2008 Posts: 982 Location: Nyborg, Denmark
|
@neilf: No need to apologise, it's cool. The whole "republish entire site" text is very misguiding anyway, so that just helped making it obvious that the caption needs to change :)
Jeeeez, did I really start this :-)
|
|
 Rank: Devotee
Joined: 3/19/2008 Posts: 52 Location: London
|
Ok I've added the codeplex "Issue Tracker" item:
Publish all children to optionally skip unpublished pages #18937
If anyone agrees with it - vote for it there.
Cheers
Neil
Disclaimer: Projectstream Ltd (UK) and its directors make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information provided in the Umbraco Forum and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis and is for informational purposes only.
That being said, if you think I'm mad then please tell me. Alternatively if you think I've been really helpful thats wonderful.
|
|
 Rank: Addict
Joined: 3/17/2008 Posts: 982 Location: Nyborg, Denmark
|
I've started working on this and expect to have it included in the final beta 2 build
Jeeeez, did I really start this :-)
|
|
 Rank: Fanatic
Joined: 8/9/2007 Posts: 284 Location: Kentucky, USA
|
Awesome, Niels.
Pete Koutoulas • Fayette County Public Schools • Lexington, Kentucky
|
|
 Rank: Devotee
Joined: 3/19/2008 Posts: 52 Location: London
|
You can't compete with that... not just quick answer, its already going in the next release. Top!
Neil
Disclaimer: Projectstream Ltd (UK) and its directors make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information provided in the Umbraco Forum and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis and is for informational purposes only.
That being said, if you think I'm mad then please tell me. Alternatively if you think I've been really helpful thats wonderful.
|
|
 Rank: Addict
Joined: 3/17/2008 Posts: 982 Location: Nyborg, Denmark
|
This one is implemented now and will be available in tonights build (will run in 8 hours from now)
Jeeeez, did I really start this :-)
|
|
 Rank: Umbracoholic
Joined: 9/27/2007 Posts: 1,123 Location: Belgium
|
Great stuff Niels! How much we appreciate how people are listening to what users really need! Greetz, /Dirk
level 1 & 2 certified - umbraco MVP 2008/2009 - umbraco blog at netaddicts.be - working on an integrated forum4umbraco
|
|
|
Guest |