:wtf: How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread)
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
What happens if you put in:
I was going to tell you to fuck off...but given the software we're dealing with, that might actually be interesting. Hang on...
-
LOL. But when you try to save it, it does validate it and you get the same error.
-
How about Infinity?
-
-
> parseFloat('Infinity') < Infinity > parseInt('Infinity', 10) < NaN
JavaScript!
Discourse!
-
Ah, the joys of doing your validation once in javascript and then doing it differently server-side.
They're so discompetent, they couldn't piss on their feet if their shoes were on fire.
-
-
You done bad at quoting
-
Fuck, I'm going to edit to fix.
I haven't had enough sleep, and nowhere near enough caffeine today.
It would have been fine if Discourse could automatically handle nested quotes (yet another example of JDGI "I don't want to use it that way, so nobody will be able to use it that way").
-
It would have been fine if Discourse could automatically handle nested quotes (yet another example of JDGI "I don't want to use it that way, so nobody will be able to use it that way").
It works if you use the full quote button.
-
But that only works on the post immediately before yours doesn't it? Is there a way of selecting the post that you want to do a full quote on?
-
Is there a way of selecting the post that you want to do a full quote on?
Click the Reply button for that post rather than the blue reply button, then click full quote.
-
discodiscoverability
-
Thank you!
-
But that only "works" on the post immediately before yours doesn't it?
<ftfy; quoting>
-
Ah, the joys of doing your validation once in javascript and then doing it differently server-side.
I .Net's validators. The standard set of them will automagically do the client AND server-side validation for you. You can cover 90% of your use cases with Required and Regular Expression. For the rest, there's Custom Validator, that lets you specify a client and server-side function that hook into the "Is Valid" framework that's already there. 90% of those you write a function and reuse it over and over-- for example "Does this parse to a date, and is it in range". So once you've written and tested it once, use it over and over.
That last 1% is bizzare-as-shit validations-- like doing an AJAX call to check if a username is already taken (though both client and server can use the same server-side function to check, so it isn't that bad).
My point being-- if you're doing common validation from scratch these days, you're . So right up Discopore's alley.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
doing an AJAX call to check if a username is already taken
That's almost always racey as fuck.
-
-
@tufty said:
racey as fuck.
I'm fairly sure there's a racism+sex+SJW joke in there somewhere, but I CBA to try to come up with one that's both funny and not too vulgar.
-
Then just post the vulgar but funny shit
-
I'm not really sure I can even satisfy the "funny" requirement. I was thinking of some over the top fake-SJW rant about having a personal preference in partners is equivalent to murder, or something, like our resident *phobia troll.
-
I was thinking of some over the top fake-SJW rant about having a personal preference in partners is equivalent to murder, or something, like our resident *phobia troll.
We have topics for that now!
-
I am aware of this. I'd also be the first to say that any such joke (if I bothered to come up one) other than a quick one-liner or "That's racist!" meme belongs in one of the joke topics, not here, although Discourse bugs have become a rather bad joke, too.
-
Click the Reply button for that post rather than the blue reply button, then click full quote.
Because having 800,000 ways to quote someone is clearly better than one single consistent method.
-
#If Discourse was shoes:
-
You can keep your Clown-foot-fetish porn to yourself TYVM.
-
I think there must be an error in that picture. The floor is not vomited-upon (or maybe someone cleaned up after those clowns). Or perhaps it is a before picture?
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
I .Net's validators
They aren't good enough for me to forgive asp.net for all the suffering from update panel abstraction leaking bugs. Ajax in asp.net webforms sucks.
-
That's almost always racey as fuck.
Yeah. Though whenever I've done one, it's often been on a site that uses email for username, so there often aren't two people competing for a username. And the site often has a low number of signups-per-day. So it's been "good enough".
If Discourse was shoes:
- The shoes would be extra, extra wide
- There'd be laces, made out of velcro, that slide through buckle loops, that are attached to the tongue so they don't actually do anything
- Every morning you might wake up to a different shoe. It's like elves showed up overnight, except instead of making you new shoes, they fucked around with your current one. And pooped in them
- The inner sole wouldn't be glued down, because glue is a crutch and only DANCERS care about it CLOSED_WONT_FIX
- Fuck
Ajax in asp.net webforms sucks.
Agreed. The Update Panel is okay, if only because it ties into the page lifecycle nicely, and because it forces people to learn about jQuery's .on function to avoid fucking up their entire page.
However, the rest of the Ajax Toolkit needs to get fucked with a rusty coffee table. I've actively worked to remove it from any project I have any association with, and will tell anyone with any influence about how much of a code-destorying, time-sinking piece of worthless shit it is.
-
-
IIt's one of the unwritten laws of software development that your users will find ways of using the software that you never imagined. It doesn't mean that they are doing it wrong. It just means that you can't possibly think of all of the possible use cases.
And if people are figuring out ways to circumvent a stupid pointless rule then maybe you should eliminate that restriction.
-
-
At least one of those shoes should have "502 OK" written on them.
-
How is this still broken?!
The image there is still my original avatar.
I also discovered another bug where Upload Picture looked disabled, and had the ο cursor but still let me click it.
-
Also, despite a hard refresh...
-
-
Yeah seems to have sorted itself out now.
Remember 90s hellstew forums when this shit just didn't happen?
-
But but, they have to link to every iteration of every avatar, because HTTP can't handle caching
-
Chrome on iPad is not really a supported platform
Popular browser on a popular device? Nah Jeff, can't see why there's an expectation for that to be supported.
-
@codinghorror said:
Chrome on iPadDiscourse is not really a supported platformObvious FTFY is obvious.
And I'm going to for with it...
-
-
+ BLUB!
<perfectly happy with my body, thanks Discourse
-
:thatsthejoke.gif:
-
Obvious FTFY is obvious.
I was going to
And I'm going to for with it...
... nope.
-
Chrome on iPad
Chrome on iPad just uses WebKit.
Maaaaaaybe it isn't the device or browser that's on a
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Maaaaaaybe it isn't the device or browser that's on a
No, it's always the user and or device that makes Discourse break. ALWAYS.
-
Either you're doing it wrong, or you're using the wrong platform.
Filed under: You're doing it wrong on the wrong platform
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Chrome on iPad just uses WebKit.
It doesn't get the same JS runtime engine that Safari on iPad has.
If Discourse wasn't built on such a
heavyshoddynot built formobilereal-world use JS framework, it wouldn't be a problem.
-
-
Either you're doing it wrong, or you're using the wrong platform.
Why not both? Why not @zoidberg?
Filed under: I don't care if he doesn't monitor this area