- π¨π¦Canada bgilhome Victoria
Re-roll from latest 1.x-dev/1.8 and for D9 (update renamed 'user.private_tempstore' service).
- π¨π¦Canada bgilhome Victoria
Improved to use only temp storage and not need to set a 'fragment_redirects' flag in the query string.
- last update
8 months ago Patch Failed to Apply - π¬π§United Kingdom John_B London (UK), Worthing (UK), Innsbruck (Tirol)
I find no branch where the recent three patches apply.
- π¬π§United Kingdom John_B London (UK), Worthing (UK), Innsbruck (Tirol)
- last update
8 months ago PHPLint Failed - π¬π§United Kingdom John_B London (UK), Worthing (UK), Innsbruck (Tirol)
Another reroll of patch in #7, fixing syntax errors.
- last update
8 months ago 36 pass, 18 fail - π¬π§United Kingdom John_B London (UK), Worthing (UK), Innsbruck (Tirol)
This patch now depends on the fragment being stored in the hash, and this only works if "Retain query string through redirect." is off. If it is on the fragment is not stored. Se π Redirect hashes created when not retaining the query string RTBC
- π¬π§United Kingdom John_B London (UK), Worthing (UK), Innsbruck (Tirol)
This is a good clean solution to redirecting fragments. It is far better than making a separate module. If the fragment reaches the server we should be able to use it. I see it is a major feature request, and have changed it to "Normal".
On the other hand, module maintainers are often reluctant to include additional features. New features may mean more work for them. If it is not included in a published release, a solution needing a large patch on multiple files causes a maintenance headache. I'd like to see some positive reaction from the maintainers before putting more work into it.