[theme-reviewers] Requesting reconsideration of Pronto theme forwordpress

Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) philip at frumph.net
Tue Aug 24 22:01:38 UTC 2010

RE: [theme-reviewers] Requesting reconsideration of Pronto theme forwordpressI do apologize for this but this theme will not pass the theme review unless coding is up to standards.   We can give an you an idea of what is wrong with your theme and why it didn't pass but that does not immediately disclose that it would pass in the future if just those items were addressed.   We do not look at everything and give you everything that is needed to fix, only what we find on the theme review at the time.

your blue:  esc_attr($_REQUEST['variable']) or esc_html() something that strips any possible vulnerabilities

wp_list_comments has a callback, you will need to adjust your coding accordingly.

You will have to change to use wp_login_form

additional notice:

Notice: Undefined index: logo_size in \wp-content\themes\pronto\cjl\pronto\pronto_options.php on line 96

You are not allowing for the MORE tag or content in the home page to properly display content on home page.

This theme will not pass the theme review unless everything whether we find it or not is up to requirements.   Please do not upload this theme again until you believe that it will pass the theme review process.

Please do not rely on the theme reviewers to debug your theme, this is your responsibility.   I too am the only developer of a large scale theme and I have to do what I can and still adhere to the standards to be on the repository.

- Philip M. Hofer (Frumph)
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cedric Legras 
  To: 'Philip M. Hofer (Frumph)' 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 2:30 PM
  Subject: RE: [theme-reviewers] Requesting reconsideration of Pronto theme forwordpress


  I have fixed what is in green. Red, I cannot change, blue I believe is fine.

  I have not submit the new version yet. Just want to know if it can be enough or no chance at all.




  => comments_template

  This is part a the styles/html/content.php function pronto_comment(),to customize comments. I, unfortunately, cannot modify this since it is part of the theme behavior

  => automatic_feed_links is automatic-feed-links

  => comment-reply (missing JS script for header.php)

  It doesn’t used exactly the same, I have to modified for an ajax request. 

  => removing the locale_stylesheet action, which doesn't exist, its actually locale_stylesheet_uri which you shouldnt do if you are adding a text domain.

  => ob_end_flush() [ref.outcontrol]: failed to delete and flush buffer. No buffer to delete or flush. on line 335 of /wp-content/themes/pronto/cjl/pronto/pronto.php

  à should not happen since there was a @, but I changed with ‘while (ob_get_level() > 0) {ob_end_flush();};’

  => removal of wp_print_scripts and wp_print_head_scripts removes actions removes core functionality

  => function cjL_login() needs to use login_form() there's no security checks for $_REQUEST

  This used the same login as wordpress, as an open source I extracted the function to be integrated in the theme. Wp_Login_form() is unfortunately incomplete yet.

  => function cjL_search() { needs to use get_search_form() instead

  => include (TEMPLATEPATH.'/sidebar-right.php'); needs to use get_sidebar('area') instead

  => $_REQUEST's in various locations need to be more secure, vulnerabilities are present

  It then always refer to wp-load.php or javascript.

  => 9M of additional memory use per page load, PHP daemon goes nuts on each page load. I'm not seeing any minimal recommendation specs to cover this overhead.

  I have 12.9mb for the max and (except with sidebars) 1 query. Twentyten use 12.7mb on my machine and it’s about 20% slower, with 100 messages 100% slower (load in 3.7secons compare to 1.6secondes).

  But this depends on hardware so it very hard to compare however 9mb, I don’t understand.

  => Backwards compatibility checks are used in some places, but not in others, earlier WordPress? versions do not run this.

  Maybe, I tested for wp2.9 and 3.0. Wordpress have too many deprecated functions for my defense.

  => use of template_uri and stylesheet_uri in various places for images makes child-themes not appear properly without having those required images/files in the child theme.

  In my opinion, this theme still has quite a bit to go before it can be accepted onto the repository. It's overhead is too high, the code base is lacking coherency, there's too much processor usage per page load and it certainly doesn't allow for all wordpress required core functionality to be used with it.

  The functionality of the theme can be rewritten to use proper wordpress templates and doesn't need to go the function route its currently doing.

  While I respect how it's done, the end result does not justify the means. There is just too wide of a margin for error for end-users to have a problematic situation and not be able to fix their site if they attempt to customize, or skin.

  ->If you play with the editor in admin, php file will check for parsing error before saving the file, so if an user make a mistake it won’t results in a white page, very common problem (many users on forum say: I modify functions.php and then etc etc..)

  The code looks messy in some place, but Only me worked on this project which use very complexed js(in admin) and php, it took me forever to arrive at this version, I still have to implement 2 featured (author archive and edit profile for the 0.8 version) then I believe I will clean and optimize the code (I have also some idea for the editor down the road)

  I’m sure some ideas in this theme will show up on other theme (like the $content_width [isn’t it cool like that?] or the add_action visual help or the filter for css or the basic file management and … too many to mention J)

  Let me know if those modifications are enough,



  -----Original Message-----
  From: Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) [mailto:philip at frumph.net]
  Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:16 PM
  To: Cedric Legras; theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
  Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Requesting reconsideration of Pronto theme forwordpress


  Your theme has been reviewed again Cedric.

  - Phil

  ----- Original Message ----- 

  From: "Cedric Legras" <pronto at legras.com>

  To: <theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>

  Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 9:23 AM

  Subject: [theme-reviewers] Requesting reconsideration of Pronto theme 


  > Hello,


  > I have submitted my theme and it was rejected because it is too 

  > complicated.

  > I tend to agree since you need to know css and php.

  > However, if you know those languages and like to customize and control 

  > your theme, Pronto have some cool featured.

  > First the style is separated (see folder styles) so you can quickly change 

  > and modified the whole look very quickly (the editor have a nice filter 

  > for css) and will check for parsing error for the php file. Actually this 

  > folder (styles) is the only one to customize the theme.

  > And with this separation, compare to other themes, you know exactly what 

  > to change (since there only few KB). If you make a mistake it take 1 click 

  > to come back to the previous configuration.

  > If you want hooked your own function (add_action in my-functions.php) 

  > there is also a nice option for a visual help. Very unique and very 

  > efficient. No more guessing where it will be hooked.

  > You can also upload files (such as images, or a whole new styles create 

  > from your computer)

  > The layout is ultra flexible (1-2-3-f), the comments are also nicely 

  > 'ajaxed' to save Bandwidth.

  > Etc... lot of featured which will be naturally improved in future updated.


  > I really like to see some reconsideration for Pronto.


  > Thanks,

  > Cedric



  > => The file structure is too different (complicated) for a standard 

  > WordPress? theme. Unable to trace the relationships in code between all 

  > these files and folders.


  > / At least this theme needs a good Readme where to be described how it 

  > works.


  > Just for illustration:

  > the пьсх index.php contains only this -


  > <?php

  > cjL_body();

  > ?>


  > - Developer needs to thoroughly read the 

  > http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review and find all the must-haves and 

  > update their theme(s) accordingly, this theme will continue to not pass 

  > until all requirements are met.

  > - It's useful if the authors check their themes with set WP_DEBUG to 

  > 'true' in wp-config.php


  > Items marked with => are reasons for not being approved

  > Items marked with / are just suggestions


  > This is a tertiary review, enough items didn't pass; Next reviewer might 

  > find more so please do everything you can to adhere to the documentation 

  > on what is accepted in the theme review.


  > -----Original Message-----

  > From: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org 

  > [mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org]

  > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 10:09 PM

  > To: pronto at legras.com

  > Subject: [WordPress Themes] Pronto, new version 0.72


  > Thank you for uploading version 0.72 of Pronto.


  > Feedback will be provided at http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/815


  > --

  > The WordPress.org Themes Team

  > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org


  > _______________________________________________

  > theme-reviewers mailing list

  > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org

  > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20100824/740ec731/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list