runthings.dev
Forum Replies Created
-
Forum: Plugins
In reply to: [Taxonomy Tags to Checkboxes] Does not hide build in Tags block editor panelOk yeah, I had originally built this for a specific clients website, which was using a CPT, the old editor, and a fixed list of options that I just wanted to let them select the tags from.
You are correct that it didn’t remove the existing boxes from the Gutenberg editor.
I have added that fix and released v1.1.1.
I’m not sure if its a great replacement for the built in tags taxonomy, as you would normally want to be making new tags for each post. This doesn’t support adding them inline yet, but if you’re happy with it as-is, then its definitely usable.
I have started work on better support for Gutenberg and inline editing is on the roadmap.
Thanks for the bug report.
- This reply was modified 1 month, 4 weeks ago by runthings.dev. Reason: typo
Forum: Plugins
In reply to: [Taxonomy Tags to Checkboxes] Does not hide build in Tags block editor panelOooh a bug report! It’s end of day here right now, but I’ll check this out and try to recreate it.
Thanks. No, I just think it should use the info class instead of the error class in the markup. I don’t have any issue with the wording of it.
Forum: Plugins
In reply to: [Google for WooCommerce] very slow in dashJust joining in, as I think you might be wrong about this not being an issue.
The site does appear to be slowing down the admin panel, and when I use Code Profiler Pro, I am seeing that it is by far the major offender.
This is the posts page:

This is the settings page:

This is the front end (not affecting the site there):

When I dig into it, it seems to be spending its time doing stuff in the Protobuf library:
Forum: Reviews
In reply to: [RunThings Secrets] Quick and easy to set upThanks for your review! The “press to reveal” feature is on the roadmap, and will be in an upcoming release. Good nudge on the missing settings. I have added default max views and default expiration date settings in v1.9.0. You can find the new settings in
Settings > RunThings Secrets > Advancedafter you update.Hmm I edited my reply to finish that thought but it seems to have not posted it. I was saying:
We do have quic.cloud on the site for maximum litespeed goodness, and also wordfence. I dont know what combination could cause the forwarded header to be present sometimes but it seems like the devs should consider this and not write out website-breaking htaccess.
Or at least give us a define to guide the check without having to take too much responsibility for the htaccess rules.
ok it sounds like you are approaching this like a support request, and the solution is just for me to mitigate it?
I was approaching it as a bug report and trying to give you enough detail to pass to the developers to get a fix integrated for it.
I will just turn the redirect off then for that site, but if you want me to be involved any further to help the devs diagnose it then let me know.
I’m not sure if you’re responding as a dev or working from changelog notes or something to help me. I let the AI take a look at it, and it seems that its incorrectly diagnosing the server as LOADBALANCER type in some scenario rather than SERVER-HTTPS-ON, which then causes it to write out a broken .htaccess rule.
We do
yeah i agree it seems like its the main index.php block by the symptoms but I did a diff on the two files and that is the only snippet that had changed.
I did an experiment before I posed this and dropped in the lscache runner snippet and it broke the website.
This is a litespeed website and running that config, although I haven’t had the reports from any other clients and we have the rss plugin and the cache plugin on all of them.
I’ve just done a line by line experiment. The site goes into 404 mode without this line:
RewriteCond %{HTTPS} !=on [NC]It is happy to have the other two lines in the site alongside that, but without it, it doesn’t work:
# BEGIN Really Simple Security Redirect
<IfModule mod_rewrite.c>
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} !lscache_runner [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP:X-Forwarded-Proto} !https
RewriteCond %{HTTPS} !=on [NC]
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !^/\.well-known/acme-challenge/
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ https://%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [R=301,L]
</IfModule>
# END Really Simple Security RedirectSo whatever fix you implemented has caused some other problem to emerge.
Without digging through your code, I don’t know what is causing it to write one or the other of the snippets.
Whats the next step?
Forum: Plugins
In reply to: [LiteSpeed Cache] quic.cloud is tangled up with previous devs accountThanks I’ve reached out.
Thanks, I’ll check in again this afternoon then.
Ok v1.1.0 is released!
Progress
Ok I am making progress with this. The feature that you have requested is done, and tested.
I can only set aside a bit of time each day to work on this though and I’m out of time for today.
There is one other unrelated feature that I’m working on for the next version, before I release the update.
Pre Release Feature
I don’t know how urgent your requirement is, but if you don’t want to wait, you can just drop the contents of this gist into the file in your installed copy of the plugin:
https://gist.github.com/rtpHarry/5d41e071580f57bbaeede5d1640f3b65
It won’t affect the update when its released, and it will get you the feature today.
Basically, you can now select “Customer Is A Guest” in each field to control how that is treated.
If you set a role in the allowed roles field, it will automatically exclude the guest role as well, is its not specified in the included list. You can add “Customer Is A Guest” to allow it.
If you set a role in the excluded roles field, it will not exclude the guest role as it wasn’t specified in the excluded list. You can add “Customer Is A Guest” to block them.
Use Case
I am still surprised that two users immediately bumped into this issue. Out of curiosity, what was it that you were trying to implement?
I had assumed that if you were wanting to restrict a coupon to only be used by a specific role, that it would not be for guest users as well.
Is your scenario that you wanted to block certain existing users from using the coupon, but allow guests or certain roles?
Ok I have implemented a new role “Customer Is A Guest” which allows you to specifically allow or exclude guest users.
I have also fixed the issue where setting any role in the exclusions, also excluded guests.
I have run out of time today to do testing, and deploy, but I should have a new version out tomorrow.
Apologies, I only just saw this thread!
I will look into this.