Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
A minor point — Parallax Forums

A minor point

Paul BakerPaul Baker Posts: 6,351
edited 2004-12-12 22:16 in General Discussion
I noticed that when a single post is on a second page, the page·containing all threads·does not reflect that there are two pages. This may lead somone who is quickly scanning a thread to miss the (page 1 2) links at the top an bottom of the thread.

Here is an example thread: http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?p=519814
(assuming no one places another post to the thread)

Paul

Comments

  • Jim EwaldJim Ewald Posts: 733
    edited 2004-12-12 16:15
    I looked at the thread and it does show that there are two pages to the thread - assuming 25 posts per page. I note that you posted the 26th message in that thread.

    Is it possible that the page marker (1 of 2) did not appear immediately after you posted the 26th message? If you go back and look at the thread now, do you see a page marker that indicates that there is only one page or two pages?

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Jim

    Parallax IT Dept.
  • Paul BakerPaul Baker Posts: 6,351
    edited 2004-12-12 18:00
    The post is accessible, and when you are on the page of posts (link in above post) at the top and bottom it shows the link to the second page, but the page containing a list of threads: http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7 does not show there are two pages (Compare "The Secret SX Instructions" thread to the "Looking for links to SX related sites" thread), this was the point I was trying to make (but did not explain clearly).
    ·
    Paul
  • Jim EwaldJim Ewald Posts: 733
    edited 2004-12-12 18:22
    Ok, I see what you are talking about now. A page marker appears under the topic subject in the thread list if there are more than 25 replies in a thread. It should appear when there are more than 25 messages in the thread (1 original post and more than 24 replies). It's a classic 'off by one' error. Now all I have to do is find it [noparse]:)[/noparse]

    Thanks for taking the time to explain the error.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Jim

    Parallax IT Dept.
  • Paul BakerPaul Baker Posts: 6,351
    edited 2004-12-12 18:30
    No, prob. Thanks for your prompt attention.
  • Paul BakerPaul Baker Posts: 6,351
    edited 2004-12-12 20:00
    I have an idea of the origin of the bug, perhaps the code relies upon the "Replies" count, since this number does not include the original post this would account for the 'off by one' error.
  • Jim EwaldJim Ewald Posts: 733
    edited 2004-12-12 22:16
    That is exactly what is going wrong. I found the code that checks for the reply count and it doesn't take the original post into consideration. Someone must have been enjoying a few too many Red Bulls when the code was written. The fix will be in the next site update.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Jim

    Parallax IT Dept.
Sign In or Register to comment.