[Xerte-dev] Re: 2.1 stable, onbeforeunload and Déjà vu?

[Julian Tenney]

I  put the onbeforeunload handler in there for something to do with sessions, but I can't remember the details. It needn't be there.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat (Pgogy) [mailto:info at pgogywebstuff.com] 
Sent: 13 February 2015 10:50
To: For Xerte technical developers
Cc: Julian Tenney
Subject: Re: [Xerte-dev] Re: 2.1 stable, onbeforeunload and Déjà vu?

I think the onbeforeunload does something with lockfiles - so it might need to be replaced with another action if it is removed

If the LDAP is returning no username - then the database contents will look odd - what does the user table look like?

On 2015-02-13 05:45, Julian Tenney wrote:
>> 1. How best to remove the rougue onbeforeunload="javascript:logout()"
> from 2.1? I could commit the change direct to 2.1
> 
> I think that's the best way if it is still there.
> 
> I don't know about the ldap issues I'm afraid.
> 
> FROM: xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> [mailto:xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] ON BEHALF OF Ron 
> Mitchell
> SENT: 13 February 2015 10:43
> TO: 'For Xerte technical developers'
> SUBJECT: [Xerte-dev] 2.1 stable, onbeforeunload and Déjà vu?
> 
> Hi all
> 
> I know we've discussed this sort of thing before but doesn't seem easy 
> to locate and track back through specific steps but anyway case in 
> point…
> 
> You may have noticed I responded to the question and thread on the 
> community site re moodle integration and helped Jayne get things 
> working including I think the last issue about logout not working. She 
> hasn't replied and confirmed yet but it seems very likely that the 
> problem with logout is the unecessary 
> onbeforeunload="javascript:logout()" in index.php which I'm pretty 
> sure we've worked through and discussed here before as well as Julian 
> replying to a previous mention of this on the community forums.
> 
> I don't personally find it easy to navigate the commits to spot 
> changes in each branch etc and so not sure whether the rogue code has 
> ever been removed from 2.1 or removed and somehow crept back. Also I 
> seem to recall that Julian orginally added that code to try to resolve 
> a firefox issue but not sure what the final result of that was except 
> that leaving it in causes more problems than it fixes. I did an 
> install of 2.1 earlier this week and with hindsight noticed the issue 
> then too but because of an issue with the latest 2.1 and ldap (another 
> story see below) reverted to an earlier 2.1 revision which must have 
> had that code removed. So a few questions:
> 
> 1. How best to remove the rougue onbeforeunload="javascript:logout()"
> from 2.1? I could commit the change direct to 2.1 but not sure that's 
> the best way e.g. it's already removed from develop but obviously 
> develop isn't ready for production use.
> 
> 2. Are there other differences like this e.g. later changes that 
> aren't related to the new editor but only in later branches and not in 
> 2.1?
> 
> 3. I did an install of the latest 2.1 revision earlier this week and 
> had problems when it came to ldap. Login was working but project 
> folders weren't being created with the username included so breaking.
> I ended up replace the install with an older revision which worked 
> immediately. There wasn't time to unpick the differences but just 
> wondering if anyone recognises that issue with LDAP and which commit 
> is relevant?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Ron
> 
> BTW apologies if two copies of this message reach the list - the first 
> attempt bounced :-(
> 
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee 
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this 
> message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete 
> it.
> 
> Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this 
> message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the 
> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the 
> University of Nottingham.
> 
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an 
> attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your 
> computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email 
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as 
> permitted by UK legislation.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xerte-dev mailing list
> Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/xerte-dev

--
Pgogy Webstuff
pgogywebstuff.com