[wp-trac] [WordPress Trac] #18068: wp_list_bookmarks orderby broke in WP 3.1.4 (submiting per Per Andrew Nacin)

Sun Oct 9 19:25:43 UTC 2011

#18068: wp_list_bookmarks orderby broke in WP 3.1.4 (submiting per Per Andrew
Nacin)
-----------------------------+--------------------
 Reporter:  theideamechanic  |       Owner:
     Type:  defect (bug)     |      Status:  new
 Priority:  normal           |   Milestone:  3.2.2
Component:  Template         |     Version:  3.1.4
 Severity:  major            |  Resolution:
 Keywords:  has-patch        |
-----------------------------+--------------------
Description changed by scribu:

Old description:

> From: Andrew Nacin <nacin at wordpress.org>
> Date: July 11, 2011 11:16:52 AM EDT
> To: Doug Foster <doug at theideamechanics.com>
> Subject: Re: if/how I should submit/track orderby bug in
> wp_list_bookmarks()?
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> Please submit a report here: http://core.trac.wordpress.org. As soon as
> possible today would be great for our timelines.
>
> Andrew
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Doug Foster <doug at theideamechanics.com>
> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I wanted to check back and ask if/how I should submit this as a bug and
> track it. What would you suggest?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Doug
>
> On Jul 1, 2011, at 12:38 PM, Doug Foster wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> ...
>
> The Codex
> (http://codex.wordpress.org/Function_Reference/wp_list_bookmarks) implies
> you would use "id" vs. the database field "link_id" as you mention, but
> in my searching I also found this kinda related issue
> (http://wordpress.org/support/topic/problem-with-orderby-in-
> wp_list_bookmarks).
>
> You're right about the approach I took or My Link Order takes, but if you
> want to order links (a very reasonable thing to do) it looks like it is a
> common practice, and the Codex implies it is (or should be) a workable
> option. I guess the real question is a clean way to do it, literally like
> a sort-order field. And a Codex page that matches the functionality.
>
> I'll try using link_id and deleting all the links and then re-entering
> those. Bummer, for my site and the ones I support that's gonna take some
> time.
>
> ...
>
> Doug
>
> On Jul 1, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Andrew Nacin wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> We couldn't have predicted that one, that's for sure. Orderby options
> weren't removed as much as they were whitelisted. Nearly every field
> remains sortable, but notes is a text field, so we couldn't have expected
> anyone to be ordering by that. (In fact, ordering by MySQL TEXT fields is
> pretty much a no-no.)
>
> orderby=id didn't appear to have ever worked, but orderby=link_id works
> fine.
>
> My Link Order adds a new column to the database. Ugly. Unfortunately
> there's no easy way to fix that from our end. But I'll take a look.
>
> Andrew
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Doug Foster <doug at theideamechanics.com>
> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> ...
>
> Upgrading from WP 3.1.3 to 3.1.4 broke the ability to sort links by notes
> using wp_list_bookmarks orderby=notes (I assume the same holds true for
> get_bookmarks too).
>
> I found this post (http://wordpress.org/support/topic/plugin-my-link-
> order-wordpress-update-broke-my-order).
>
> Reading this (http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.full-
> disclosure/80532) makes me think some of the orderby options were removed
> to address this threat.
>
> It does seem that (other than name) rating still works, but that appears
> to be the only one. For a while I thought it was just that you could not
> orderby any field with a varchar type, but it appears that even
> orderby=id (which is bigint(20) type) doesn't work.
>
> So, if you have many links (like I do on http://theideamechanic.com) –
> and used to orderby=notes – you're left looking for a work around:
> I could put a number in the name but that looks ugly and hacky
> I could use rating but you're limited to 10 links (I have more in my
> "Getting Started" category
> I could write a query to pull links direct from the database, but that
> kinda defeats the abstraction of having the wp_list_bookmarks template
> tag.
>
> ...
>
> Doug
>
> Doug Foster
> the Idea Mechanics
>   1773 NW Maynard, Cary NC 27513
>   phone: (919) 373-4311
>   Skype, AIM, Twitter: theideamechanic
> Everyone sells, even you.
> Learn how @ http://theideamechanic.com
> Need help? We help people sell: http://theideamechanics.com

New description:

 From: Andrew Nacin <nacin at wordpress.org>
 Date: July 11, 2011 11:16:52 AM EDT
 To: Doug Foster <doug at theideamechanics.com>
 Subject: Re: if/how I should submit/track orderby bug in
 wp_list_bookmarks()?

 Hi Doug,

 Please submit a report here: http://core.trac.wordpress.org. As soon as
 possible today would be great for our timelines.

 Andrew

 On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Doug Foster <doug at theideamechanics.com>
 wrote:
 Hi Andrew,

 I wanted to check back and ask if/how I should submit this as a bug and
 track it. What would you suggest?

 Thanks!

 Doug

 On Jul 1, 2011, at 12:38 PM, Doug Foster wrote:

 Hi Andrew,

 ...

 The Codex
 (http://codex.wordpress.org/Function_Reference/wp_list_bookmarks) implies
 you would use "id" vs. the database field "link_id" as you mention, but in
 my searching I also found this kinda related issue
 (http://wordpress.org/support/topic/problem-with-orderby-in-
 wp_list_bookmarks).

 You're right about the approach I took or My Link Order takes, but if you
 want to order links (a very reasonable thing to do) it looks like it is a
 common practice, and the Codex implies it is (or should be) a workable
 option. I guess the real question is a clean way to do it, literally like
 a sort-order field. And a Codex page that matches the functionality.

 I'll try using link_id and deleting all the links and then re-entering
 those. Bummer, for my site and the ones I support that's gonna take some
 time.

 ...

 Doug

 On Jul 1, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Andrew Nacin wrote:

 Hi Doug,

 We couldn't have predicted that one, that's for sure. Orderby options
 weren't removed as much as they were whitelisted. Nearly every field
 remains sortable, but notes is a text field, so we couldn't have expected
 anyone to be ordering by that. (In fact, ordering by MySQL TEXT fields is
 pretty much a no-no.)

 orderby=id didn't appear to have ever worked, but orderby=link_id works
 fine.

 My Link Order adds a new column to the database. Ugly. Unfortunately
 there's no easy way to fix that from our end. But I'll take a look.

 Andrew

 On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Doug Foster <doug at theideamechanics.com>
 wrote:
 Hi Andrew,

 ...

 Upgrading from WP 3.1.3 to 3.1.4 broke the ability to sort links by notes
 using wp_list_bookmarks orderby=notes (I assume the same holds true for
 get_bookmarks too).

 I found this post (http://wordpress.org/support/topic/plugin-my-link-
 order-wordpress-update-broke-my-order).

 Reading this (http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.full-
 disclosure/80532) makes me think some of the orderby options were removed
 to address this threat.

 It does seem that (other than name) rating still works, but that appears
 to be the only one. For a while I thought it was just that you could not
 orderby any field with a varchar type, but it appears that even orderby=id
 (which is bigint(20) type) doesn't work.

 So, if you have many links (like I do on http://theideamechanic.com) – and
 used to orderby=notes – you're left looking for a work around:
 I could put a number in the name but that looks ugly and hacky
 I could use rating but you're limited to 10 links (I have more in my
 "Getting Started" category
 I could write a query to pull links direct from the database, but that
 kinda defeats the abstraction of having the wp_list_bookmarks template
 tag.

--

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/18068#comment:4>
WordPress Trac <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress blogging software