2
I have this error when trying to access my website several times a day.
503 Service Unavailable
No server is available to handle this request.
To me it doesn't seem to be related to XOOPS but I wanted to be 100% sure before raising a case with my hosting provider
503 Service Unavailable
No server is available to handle this request.
To me it doesn't seem to be related to XOOPS but I wanted to be 100% sure before raising a case with my hosting provider
3
During the installation process it is clear mentioned that the following folder are to be open for write access
xoops_data/caches
xoops_data/caches/xoops_cache
xoops_data/caches/smarty_cache
xoops_data/caches/smarty_compile
xoops_data/configs
xoops_data/data
xoops_data/protector
What about this one xoops_lib/modules/protector/configs/ ?
I can't remember exactly where I got this from but I am pretty sure it caused me some troubles in the past when it was not enabled for write.
xoops_data/caches
xoops_data/caches/xoops_cache
xoops_data/caches/smarty_cache
xoops_data/caches/smarty_compile
xoops_data/configs
xoops_data/data
xoops_data/protector
What about this one xoops_lib/modules/protector/configs/ ?
I can't remember exactly where I got this from but I am pretty sure it caused me some troubles in the past when it was not enabled for write.
4
It did work, I maintained the nav-bar and the footer but my left menu are gone , not a big deal for now .
I guess if I want to maintain it all it would have to be a block, correct?
If that is the case I hope I can get to the point where I can create a simple one some day. I ll try to read the doc again.
I guess if I want to maintain it all it would have to be a block, correct?
If that is the case I hope I can get to the point where I can create a simple one some day. I ll try to read the doc again.
5
Thanks Mamba,
I will try it today. Just for my understanding I am not building a block by doing this right? I can just call it from a block if I want to?
I was planning to call it from a link in the navbar so I will try this way first.
I will try it today. Just for my understanding I am not building a block by doing this right? I can just call it from a block if I want to?
I was planning to call it from a link in the navbar so I will try this way first.
6
What would be a very simple way of adding a HTML page to my XOOP website.
By simple I mean a link on my navbar should load an HTML page maintaining the sidebar contents and navbar.
I don’t understand the templating and block system (even I have read some doc about it) so can’t really use that for now and neither want it to be a module as to limit dependencies.
A simple "about us" HTML page with a few lines is all I need and I can build it, I just can't get my head around adding it to my webpage.
Is there an easy way to achieve this?
By simple I mean a link on my navbar should load an HTML page maintaining the sidebar contents and navbar.
I don’t understand the templating and block system (even I have read some doc about it) so can’t really use that for now and neither want it to be a module as to limit dependencies.
A simple "about us" HTML page with a few lines is all I need and I can build it, I just can't get my head around adding it to my webpage.
Is there an easy way to achieve this?
7
Indeed RFC 7239 look goods. I though that XFF was a already a standard but as per RFC it is not.
Thanks for this,
Thanks for this,
8
My provider have upgraded their platform and now we sit behind a load balancer or firewall. This has the consequences that the web server we are on will always the same IP address.
During testing I wanted to open access only to me and was forced to use XFF in .htaccess rather that the traditional require ip.
Would the IP filtering mechanism in XOOPS based on XFF by any chances?
During testing I wanted to open access only to me and was forced to use XFF in .htaccess rather that the traditional require ip.
SetEnvIF X-Forwarded-For "1.1.1.1" AllowIP
<RequireAny>
Require env AllowIP
</RequireAny>
Would the IP filtering mechanism in XOOPS based on XFF by any chances?
10
There is an issue with the synchronize option in admin->users as if you click on synchronize button at the top or any synchronize button associated with a particular user it will reset the NewBB count to zero even if a user has tons of posts in the forums.
I found out that the issue is related to SQL calls to table “bb_posts” while the correct table name is “newbb_posts” (it seem to me that this table has been renamed to “newbb_posts” at some point).
I have made the following changes in /modules/system/admin/users/jquery.php at line 53
for the per user synchronize option
And the following changes in /modules/system/admin/users/users.php at line 232
for the general (all users) synchronize option
Both corrections seem to work.
Can someone confirm if this is good enough?
I don’t know PHP and XOOPS so I can’t judge it would not introduce another issue somewhere else nor if there is somewhere else in the code that would need similar corrections.
The file modules/newbb/include/config.php seem to have quite a few more references to the old naming convention ( from line 81) can’t really figure out what this is doing.
I am happy to raise issue and submit corrections on github if that’s all needed to be done.
I found out that the issue is related to SQL calls to table “bb_posts” while the correct table name is “newbb_posts” (it seem to me that this table has been renamed to “newbb_posts” at some point).
I have made the following changes in /modules/system/admin/users/jquery.php at line 53
- $tables[] = array('table_name' => 'bb_posts', 'uid_column' => 'uid');
+ $tables[] = array('table_name' => 'newbb_posts', 'uid_column' => 'uid');
for the per user synchronize option
And the following changes in /modules/system/admin/users/users.php at line 232
- $tables[] = array('table_name' => 'bb_posts', 'uid_column' => 'uid');
+ $tables[] = array('table_name' => 'newbb_posts', 'uid_column' => 'uid');
for the general (all users) synchronize option
Both corrections seem to work.
Can someone confirm if this is good enough?
I don’t know PHP and XOOPS so I can’t judge it would not introduce another issue somewhere else nor if there is somewhere else in the code that would need similar corrections.
The file modules/newbb/include/config.php seem to have quite a few more references to the old naming convention ( from line 81) can’t really figure out what this is doing.
I am happy to raise issue and submit corrections on github if that’s all needed to be done.
Login
Search
Recent Posts
Who's Online
Donat-O-Meter
| Stats | |
| Goal: | $100.00 |
| Due Date: | Apr 30 |
| Gross Amount: | $0.00 |
| Net Balance: | $0.00 |
| Left to go: | $100.00 |
 |
|