Piwigo.org

VDigital · 2010-03-19 11:51:23

plg wrote:
What would be really appreciated for 2.1:
...
* better way to manage user input data (to avoid security issues)
...

and

nicolas wrote:
plg wrote:
Propose a secure method to work with user data input (considering PHP 5 is required to run Piwigo), I know that's important for you :-)
I know that you will say something like that ! :-) Ok for me but just after gettex. ...

Where do we stand today on user input management today?

plg · 2010-03-19 11:53:51

VDigital wrote:
Where do we stand today on user input management today?

postponed to 2.2

rvelices · 2010-03-19 13:05:40

plg wrote:
VDigital wrote:
Where do we stand today on user input management today?
postponed to 2.2

so we should merge from brqnch 2.0 to trunk all the current check_input_parameters and pwg_token. Right ?
Otherwise we fallback to the CSRF issues

plg · 2010-03-19 13:07:54

rvelices wrote:
plg wrote:
VDigital wrote:
Where do we stand today on user input management today?
postponed to 2.2
so we should merge from brqnch 2.0 to trunk all the current check_input_parameters and pwg_token. Right ?
Otherwise we fallback to the CSRF issues

Of course rvelices, that's in my afternoon planning (right now I'm propagating the new "add tags" widget to element_set*).

Tonight, I'll come here to write what's still in the TODO list before 2.1.0RC1 :-)

nicolas · 2010-03-19 13:31:24

plg wrote:
rvelices wrote:
plg wrote:

postponed to 2.2
so we should merge from brqnch 2.0 to trunk all the current check_input_parameters and pwg_token. Right ?
Otherwise we fallback to the CSRF issues
Of course rvelices, that's in my afternoon planning (right now I'm propagating the new "add tags" widget to element_set*).

Tonight, I'll come here to write what's still in the TODO list before 2.1.0RC1 :-)

But it could have be better to create branch 2.1 before and not merge that stuff to trunk. We have to unmerge it after !

plg · 2010-03-19 13:33:32

nicolas wrote:
But it could have be better to create branch 2.1 before and not merge that stuff to trunk. We have to unmerge it after !

The branch must be created as late as possible to avoid multiple merge (and there will be many commits during the beta test period)

VDigital · 2010-03-19 15:38:08

Copyright(C) 2008-2009 Piwigo Team http://piwigo.org

Don't forget 2008-2010!
;-)

plg · 2010-03-19 23:29:12

rvelices wrote:
so we should merge from brqnch 2.0 to trunk all the current check_input_parameters and pwg_token. Right ?

Job's done in [Subversion] r5195. Quite a big commit, I heavily refactored the edit/delete comment feature (which is a really nice feature).

plg · 2010-03-19 23:46:32

VDigital wrote:
Don't forget 2008-2010!

Job's done.

plg · 2010-03-22 22:27:50

The features are "ready enough" for 2.1.0RC1. Last step is to make sure all strings have internationisation and are present in lang/en_UK/*.lang.php at least.

My current main task is:

1) to check all strings have i18n on my devs (I've asked nicolas and P@t to check also),
2) then fill lang/en_UK/*.lang.php
3) run tools/translation_analysis against 2.0 language files
4) communicate with translators to get their translation

RC1 should be available on 2010-03-26 I hope.

rvelices · 2010-03-23 12:33:41

plg wrote:
The features are "ready enough" for 2.1.0RC1. Last step is to make sure all strings have internationisation and are present in lang/en_UK/*.lang.php at least.

My current main task is:

1) to check all strings have i18n on my devs (I've asked nicolas and P@t to check also),
2) then fill lang/en_UK/*.lang.php
3) run tools/translation_analysis against 2.0 language files
4) communicate with translators to get their translation

RC1 should be available on 2010-03-26 I hope.

Do we have a way to see which language strings are defined but never used ?

plg · 2010-03-23 13:07:31

rvelices wrote:
Do we have a way to see which language strings are defined but never used ?

I've coded a script this morning to detect the keys used in *.php and *.tpl but not defined in language files.

I will add the detection to find language keys defined but not used.

You're right, cleaning is a good idea :-)

plg · 2010-03-23 13:29:38

The main problem is that I can quite easily detect:

Code:

{'***'|translate}
l10n('***')
l10n_args('***',

BUT if the key is built dynamically, then it's much more complex to detect, of course:

Code:

$language_key = 'my language key';
l10n($language_key);

(just a trivial example, of course it's much more complex in the real code)

plg · 2010-05-10 22:51:40

I thought it could be possible to release Piwigo 2.1.0 today BUT after a discussion with P@t, I've decided to postpone release 2.1.0 to monday 17th May 2010 (1 week in the future).

The reason is : Automatic Upgrade. P@t is currently improving the [extension by P@t] Piwigo Auto Upgrade to let users jump from 2.0.x to 2.1.0 and forget about the heavy manual upgrade procedure.

I won't have much time to work on Piwigo at the end of the week, but I will prepare the launch as much as possible (release notes, newsletters, prepare page changes on the website...)

mediapuck · 2010-05-10 23:01:10

just one simple question: will it be possible to upgrade from RC3 to the final release next monday? Or will I need a fresh install of 2.1?
Appreciate your feedback :)

Piwigo.org

Announcement

#16 2010-03-19 11:51:23

Re: Piwigo 2.1 planning

plg wrote:

nicolas wrote:

plg wrote:

#17 2010-03-19 11:53:51

Re: Piwigo 2.1 planning

VDigital wrote:

#18 2010-03-19 13:05:40

Re: Piwigo 2.1 planning

plg wrote:

VDigital wrote:

#19 2010-03-19 13:07:54

Re: Piwigo 2.1 planning

rvelices wrote:

plg wrote:

VDigital wrote:

#20 2010-03-19 13:31:24

Re: Piwigo 2.1 planning

plg wrote:

rvelices wrote:

plg wrote:

#21 2010-03-19 13:33:32

Re: Piwigo 2.1 planning

nicolas wrote:

#22 2010-03-19 15:38:08

Re: Piwigo 2.1 planning

#23 2010-03-19 23:29:12

Re: Piwigo 2.1 planning

rvelices wrote:

#24 2010-03-19 23:46:32

Re: Piwigo 2.1 planning

VDigital wrote:

#25 2010-03-22 22:27:50

Re: Piwigo 2.1 planning

#26 2010-03-23 12:33:41

Re: Piwigo 2.1 planning

plg wrote:

#27 2010-03-23 13:07:31

Re: Piwigo 2.1 planning

rvelices wrote:

#28 2010-03-23 13:29:38

Re: Piwigo 2.1 planning

Code:

Code:

#29 2010-05-10 22:51:40

Re: Piwigo 2.1 planning

#30 2010-05-10 23:01:10

Re: Piwigo 2.1 planning

Board footer