New designs for TPFC by tproli

All suggestions about TPFC should be posted here. Discussions about changes to TPFC will also be carried out here.
Message
Author
User avatar
tproli
Posts: 1165
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:14 am
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: New designs for TPFC by tproli

#451 Post by tproli » Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:18 pm

In the Add entry section, this label points to a wrong input:

Code: Select all

<label for="x_topic_id">Similar/alternative apps</label>
It should be

Code: Select all

<label for="x_alternatives">Similar/alternative apps</label>

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2209
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: New designs for TPFC by tproli

#452 Post by Andrew Lee » Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:19 pm

Corrected. Thanks!!

User avatar
tproli
Posts: 1165
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:14 am
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: New designs for TPFC by tproli

#453 Post by tproli » Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:15 am

Great, thanks.

User avatar
Craunch
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:27 am
Location: UK

Re: New designs for TPFC by tproli

#454 Post by Craunch » Wed May 06, 2015 5:01 am

There is a link from a program's entry in the collection to its forum topic, but there is no corresponding link from a program's forum topic to its software collection entry unless one of the forum entries happens to have included the link. Would it be useful to add such a link?

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 4201
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: New designs for TPFC by tproli

#455 Post by Midas » Wed May 06, 2015 5:14 am

Sure. I always try to include such a link in my relevant posts...

User avatar
joby_toss
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:57 am
Location: Romania
Contact:

Re: New designs for TPFC by tproli

#456 Post by joby_toss » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:42 am

Hi!
I didn't change any settings lately (Newer first option is still active), yet I see this:

Image

User avatar
Checker
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:00 pm
Location: Ingolstadt [DE]

Re: New designs for TPFC by tproli

#457 Post by Checker » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:12 am

@joby_toss: I noticed the same. A lot of "old" stuff came up to the main page :?

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 1765
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: New designs for TPFC by tproli

#458 Post by SYSTEM » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:15 am

joby_toss wrote:Hi!
I didn't change any settings lately (Newer first option is still active), yet I see this:

Image
I think it happened because a ton of entries became public at once. Looks like DarkShadow and TP109 achieved rank 5, which brought a lot of entries to the ten point threshold.

The site orders entries by the time they have been updated or they have become public (whichever is later), and those entries became public at the same time.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 11th playlist: January 26, 2018

User avatar
Checker
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:00 pm
Location: Ingolstadt [DE]

Re: New designs for TPFC by tproli

#459 Post by Checker » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:36 am

@SYSTEM: That's what I was thinking, too :wink:
But: ExperienceIndexOK (added/voted by me "R5" and voted by DarkShadow "R5") is public for a long time now (2015-07-06) and was updated by me several times (flagged "updated") now it appears as "new" :?

Same for "BowPad".
Added by DarkShadow 2015-01-20, public and updated by me several times (Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, Jul) this year, is now again flagged as "new" :?
Attachments
BowPad.png
Last edited by Checker on Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Checker
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:00 pm
Location: Ingolstadt [DE]

Re: New designs for TPFC by tproli

#460 Post by Checker » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:48 am

@SYSTEM: BTW: DarkShadow voted as R5 for some of my entries already.

Another example: "FlicFlac"
Even if DarkShadow and TP109 were not R5 till today, a vote of 13 points (R5+R4+R4) would be enough to be public.
And: If it's a new public entry it has to be flagged as "new" ... what it isn't :?
Attachments
FlicFlac.png

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2209
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: New designs for TPFC by tproli

#461 Post by Andrew Lee » Sun Aug 30, 2015 6:15 pm

I am looking into this problem. At first glance, it appears to be a code error, but I can't be sure yet.

It's rather tricky and will probably take some time to figure out.

Will keep you guys updated.

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2209
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: New designs for TPFC by tproli

#462 Post by Andrew Lee » Sun Aug 30, 2015 7:28 pm

What I've done so far: I have restored the "display_order" and "status" fields of the affected entries. A total of 78 entries were affected. This is easily done because the affected entries had the same display_order value.

I have to admit after many hours of tracing, I am still not quite sure what happened. The code seems alright. Here's the low-level details. The 3 fields you should care about are "updated", "display_order" and "status". The "updated" field changes every time an entry is modified. The "display_order" field only change when an entry is modified and the rules deem that it should move to the top of the list. The "status" field indicates whether an entry is private, new or updated.

In this case for all 78 entries, the "updated" field were untouched. The "display_order" field were changed to the same value. The "status" field were changed to "new". The scores remained the same i.e. no new votes were received during this period.

The only place where the "display_order" field is changed without updating the "updated" field is in the maintenance task. However, the code here is very simple. It will only update the "display_order" field for entries that are private. Yet for all 78 entries, their statuses were either "New" or "Updated" before the glitch hits.

So I have performed the above data restoration and will watch carefully if the glitch hits again. If it does, hopefully we'll have more clues to figure out what happened.

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 1765
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: New designs for TPFC by tproli

#463 Post by SYSTEM » Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:02 pm

Andrew Lee wrote:What I've done so far: I have restored the "display_order" and "status" fields of the affected entries. A total of 78 entries were affected. This is easily done because the affected entries had the same display_order value.

I have to admit after many hours of tracing, I am still not quite sure what happened. The code seems alright. Here's the low-level details. The 3 fields you should care about are "updated", "display_order" and "status". The "updated" field changes every time an entry is modified. The "display_order" field only change when an entry is modified and the rules deem that it should move to the top of the list. The "status" field indicates whether an entry is private, new or updated.

In this case for all 78 entries, the "updated" field were untouched. The "display_order" field were changed to the same value. The "status" field were changed to "new". The scores remained the same i.e. no new votes were received during this period.

The only place where the "display_order" field is changed without updating the "updated" field is in the maintenance task. However, the code here is very simple. It will only update the "display_order" field for entries that are private. Yet for all 78 entries, their statuses were either "New" or "Updated" before the glitch hits.

So I have performed the above data restoration and will watch carefully if the glitch hits again. If it does, hopefully we'll have more clues to figure out what happened.
Thanks for the details.

I wonder if this was another SQL injection attack...
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 11th playlist: January 26, 2018

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2209
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: New designs for TPFC by tproli

#464 Post by Andrew Lee » Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:05 am

I wonder if this was another SQL injection attack...
Won't say it is impossible, but two arguments against this possibility.

1) All SQL calls are sanitized since the last SQL injection attack a long time back

2) There's no common pattern behind the entries affected. Kind of strange to formulate an SQL injection attack like this:

Code: Select all

update software set display_order=now(), status=1 where id in (id1, id2, id3, ...., id78)
All for what?

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 4201
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: New designs for TPFC by tproli

#465 Post by Midas » Mon Aug 31, 2015 6:08 am

SYSTEM wrote:I think it happened because a ton of entries became public at once. Looks like DarkShadow and TP109 achieved rank 5, which brought a lot of entries to the ten point threshold.

The site orders entries by the time they have been updated or they have become public (whichever is later), and those entries became public at the same time.
Andrew Lee wrote:What I've done so far: [...]
  • Judging from the newsfeed alone, that update was almost in the hundreds. I was trying to figure what had happened on my own, but just didn't manage. So from myself (and on behalf of any of our more dimwitted members) thank you ever so much for explaining it. :mrgreen:

Post Reply