> > Thanks. I hope that this year it will become about 50% more cool again :) > reloading is on its way, and some other features as well, but the > development doesn't go very fast.. may be I even have to redesign some > internals once again. >
Slow and steady wins the race. ;) It's certainly taken me long enough to catch up to you as a user, and I don't mind waiting for updates, especially when the current version suits my needs so well. > Ok, I can see where the problem can be from. Try this: grab the full-code > version of STP [1] and substitute the line > > includeURL = w.tiddler.getIncludeURL(), > > with the line > > includeURL = w.tiddler ? w.tiddler.getIncludeURL() : "", > > and let me know the result. Or you can send me a TW you have trouble with > to me directly. > That worked beautifully for me at first — until I had multiple TWs with SharedTiddlersPlugin enabled open at the same time. When that occurs, I get a slightly different alert: <http://tiddlywiki.secret-hq.com/images/screenshots/TiddlyWiki%20SharedTiddlersPlugin%20errors/search_PrettyLinkHijackWithNodeError.png> I may have introduced a new bug on my end. To manage config.options.STP_hijackPrettyLink and config.options.STP_hijackImageFormatter, I created two option checkboxes — chkLetSTPHijackPrettyLinks and chkLetSTPHijackImageFormatter, respectively. Then I check and set the main values with this line before your code: config.options.STP_hijackPrettyLink = config.options.chkLetSTPHijackPrettyLinks;config.options.STP_hijackImageFormatter = config.options.chkLetSTPHijackImageFormatter; (The idea was to insulate your values from my cookies so I could turn off or delete my cookies if you used something different later on. Of course, that introduces the possibility that I've screwed something up.) Maybe there's a conflict somewhere between the cookies being set by these options? I'll try overriding them by hard-coding the values for config.options.STP_hijackPrettyLink and config.options.STP_hijackImageFormatter and report back. (But if anyone spots anything bone-headed about my scheme itself, please chime in and let me know.) > As for the trouble with the [[tiddler]]@node syntax, I didn't really get > what happens/doesn't happen. May be you can attach a couple of TWs with > minimum tiddlers reproducing the problem? > (describeNode macro can be used inline, but I consider that as rather bad > practice -- it was introduced in first place to be able to use one nodeName > in several places, so the definition should be elsewhere, in IncludeList) > In putting together a test case to show you, I saw the problem. It wasn't my syntax -- but it was some ham-fisted TiddlyWiking on my part. :( My inline node definition was enclosed in /% and %/ as part of the definitions of a tab set. E.g.: <<tabs txtTabSetTabs "tab1" "first tab" [[ThisTiddler##MyTab]] etc.>> /% !MyTab <<describeNode "nodeName" "index.html">>See [[this link|ThatTiddler]]@nodeName for details. %/ ... which is why I was seeing the error: The node definition wasn't being set because it was hidden from display and wikification! (When the section it was contained within was displayed in the tab set, the link and text got wikified fine, but the node definition doesn't get wikified in that context and was undefined. (Hence the error.) Of course, this is handily avoided by defining all nodes in IncludeList. :P -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
