[TYPO3-dam-devel] RFC #9555: Information about services

[Dan Osipov]

How about 9555_dam patch? Does that work?
I'll try to get a different patch for the index.

Dan Osipov
Calkins Media
http://danosipov.com/blog/

ben van 't ende [netcreators] wrote:
> Hey Dan,
> 
> Applying 9555 does not work. I think Uschi has got the same problem.
> 
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 100.
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 154.
> Hunk #3 FAILED at 166.
> Hunk #4 FAILED at 469.
> Hunk #5 FAILED at 1011.
> 5 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file 
> modfunc_index/class.tx_damindex_index.php.rej
> 
> gRTz
> 
> ben
> 
> 
> 
> Francois Suter wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>>> This is a SVN patch request.
>>> Branches: dam trunk, dam_index trunk
>>> BT Reference: http://bugs.typo3.org/view.php?id=9555
>>>
>>> Problem: Services info requires DAM_index, and is hidden deep in the 
>>> submodules. This patch creates a new submodule under Tools.
>>
>> I have finally had time to test this stuff and have found where the 
>> misunderstanding (between Dan and Ben) is coming from ;-)
>>
>> Dan submitted 2 patches in his original post. One patch removes the 
>> services info from dam_index and the other patch adds the services 
>> info to dam (in the Tools module). Following my question about another 
>> patch Dan had done about dam_index (RFC #9549), Dan created a combined 
>> patch between #9549 and the patch about dam_index. But the patch for 
>> dam in the original post (named 9555_dam.patch) must still be applied. 
>> I hope this makes things clearer.
>>
>> I have tested both patches and they work beautifully. Services info is 
>> just where I wished to have it. This is great.
>>
>> The only issue is that the patch 9555_dam.patch contains a duplicate 
>> of the code for the services info (the "Index: 
>> modfunc_tools_serviceinfo/class.tx_dam_tools_serviceinfo.php" chunk 
>> appears twice).
>>
>> I have another issue with the docheader for dam_index, but I will post 
>> that in the related thread.
>>
>> +1 upon testing and reading (with clearing up the duplicate code)
>>
>> Thanks for your work Dan!
>>
> 
>