So I am trying to throw in a little catchy code to the Product Availability section on our Magento product pages to add the the "Availability: In Stock" portion.
If the item is backordered I want to add some additional code. The code is not my problem, I can't find where to put it.
With simple products I simply edit:
template/catalog/product/view/type/simple.phtml
Now one with common sense would presume that a configurable product with children products could be found in
template/catalog/product/view/type/configurable.phtml
But of course with Magento, this would make too much sense. Essentially could someone show me how to edit the availability/price area of the page for a configurable product with children?
Many thanks!
May I recommend that you enable template path hints? Admin > System > Configuration > Developer (all the way at the bottom) > Debug. You'll need to switch out of the default configuration scope to see the template path hints options. Once this is enabled, flush the cache and you should see the files being used when you refresh the catalog product view page.
Related
I am trying to modify an existing XML package of Aspdotnetstorefront Multistore. It's an internal XML package to show the variants of a certain product. What I did to start with was to copy-paste the whole code as is and throw it into a new custom XML package. The problem is that it works fine in the original package but not in the copied package. When I try to run it the function "AddtoCartForm" crashes the page and show the following error while display in red the line that contains the function call:
An HtmlHelper is required for this method. Make sure to specify one when you call the RunXmlPackage method
The format of the function is:
<xsl:value-of select="aspdnsf:AddtoCartForm(ProductID, VariantID, 1, 1, $SelectedSize, $SelectedColor)" disable-output-escaping="yes"/>
I removed the line with the function just to be sure and then everything else works fine. I have no idea what's wrong here. Everything is identical unless by the structure of the url which calls the package:
For the internal package it is: \product\123456
For the custom package it is: \topic\packagename?ProductID=123456
I checked the XML produced by the SPs, the runtime and requested data and it's basically the same in both cases. The ProductID and VariantID values are there. SelectedColor and SelectedSize are not in the XML (not even in the internal package) so it may be just providing null value and probably it's not necessary anyway.
And there is more. If I supress the productid value from the url like this:
\topic\packagename
It won't crash the page (but also won't render because there will be not be any value to process).
In any way I cannot see why it wouldn't work just passing the variable in the querystring (that is basically what it does in the original package even in a different format) and the var value (productid) it getting there. However it seems that it is indeed the url format that is not pleasing the package but it doesn't make too much sense to me. I am over this for several days already and nothing I do seem to produce any positive result. :-(
I looked up online for some documentation but didn't get lucky and didn't find absolutely anything. In extreme cases I try to reach the Vortx support (and they usually answers me giving some valueable clue) but this time it seems that for this specific issue there will not be any help unless I pay an obscene hour fee and unfortunately it's out of question... LoL!
Any idea?
UPDATE: We don't use Multistore regular search tool. Due to the nature of our products (recycled car parts) we have a custom search tool that will try to find 'similar' items that MAY fit the user needs when we don't have the EXACT part. I don't know if you are ware of but several mechanical car parts are interchangeable among different models and makes (like alternators, AC compressors, battery, suspension, cooling system, etc), so when one of our customers needs a part to fix his car he won't tell us the part code; instead he will tell us the car model, year, and generic name of the part so we will try to find the part for him. It does mean that a certain Corolla part will fit perfectly in a Honda Accord and so on. Some times we have some parts in stock that MAY fit his car but we are not absolutely sure. When it happens we will show those parts for the customer and he will decide if he can take his chances. For the sake of customer comfort we want to show all these parts in the same page, but since they normally are variants of different products we cannot use the regular product page for this purpose (because the product page will only show variants of ONE product at time). For this reason I am going to write a package - a modified version of the product page - that will do that but I am struggling with the AddtoCartForm function. In fact I JUST found a workaround by adding the item to the cart accessing directly the /shoppingcart/addtocart script and now my problem is being to force it return to a specific url after to add the item to the shopping cart...
The error has to do with the topic token able to properly get html helper filled out.
I do question why testing is being done on a topic. To test a new product xmlpackage I normally change change the xmlpackage for just one product in a testing environment.
If chaning the product xmlpackage isn't possible then I suggest using the XmlPackageController/engine instead. Which is documented on page https://help.aspdotnetstorefront.com/1000/xml_packages.htm under the heading of "Invoking XML Packages by Themselves". If using the XmlPackageController make certain that the allowengine attribute is set to true in the xmlpackage otherwise that will throw an error as well.
Summary
I'm implementing Schema.org JSON-LD structured Data into a React application that's very content heavy. I've got it all set up properly, but I'm questioning whether the way I set it up is best practice or acceptable?
The Question
I have tags minified throughout the body of my code within each element. I question this approach because it seems inefficient to have script tags all throughout the body rather than trying to consolidate them in the head tag under 1 big script tag with all the JSON-LD.
Example:
Let's say I have an eCommerce category with a lot of products on the page. Each product is contained in a <div>. Within each product div I'm providing a schema.org tag.
<div className="product-1-example">
<script type="application/ld+json">{"#context":"http://schema.org/", "#type":"Product","name":"3rd thing"}</script>
</div>
<div className="product-2-example">
<script type="application/ld+json">{"#context":"http://schema.org/", "#type":"Product","name":"3rd thing"}</script>
</div>
Here's a screenshot if the example above doesn't help of how the code is outputting:
Is this an OK approach? It just seems bizarre to me to have script tags like this all over the place? The problem I'm having as well is that because of my component structure, I can't really bundle up 1 nice tag at the top with all the consolidated structured data (i.e. grouping all the product JSON-LD data into 1). I could maybe build a script tag at the top with most of the data, and then fill out the rest with microdata?
The only way to really know is to test with the systems you want to read your markup.
There is no reason doing it that way is wrong. And I presume its done that way as its added at the point the system is processing those entities. Maybe neater to have each add their own script at the top instead of inline if possible.
I personally prefer to keep entities in their own scripts. If there is a bug in one, it will not stop the others from being parsed. You can have entities cross reference to each other by their ids.
Try not to mix with microdata. You can't cross reference ids between the two.
You probably also need to think about your entity structure. Typically you only want one main top level entity that represents what the page is about. Some other top level entities are fine as they are considered WebPage related, e.g. BreadcrumbList. But you don;t want to send mixed messages. e.g. if you mark up 10 products, which is the one the page is about? If you mark up a Product and Article. is the page an Article or about a Product?
In Drupal one can basically style the elements, like the search box, or the basic page etc. and then put some content in the site and the resulting page will be generated. But what if you want one specific site (e.g. the index page) to be different? E.g. have a image as a background, a different navigation styling etc.
What's the best paractice way of doing this?
Best practice is to have a different theme which you can switch to by using hook_custom_theme() where you check the current path. Also make sure that your theme to switch to is enabled:
/**
* Implements hook_custom_theme().
*/
function YOUR_MODULE_custom_theme() {
# check path with arg(0)
# return theme name to switch to
return 'different_theme_machine_name';
}
Alternatively you can also try ThemeKey doing this out of the box with an interface & allowing you the specify rules.
If you need to change only the content(body) section of your page, use Disply Suite. You can create unique look and feel layouts for your body section of each page.
If you trying to change the complete layout of one page (eg: Services), Create new Content Type 'Services'. Then create a template file for this content type, You must name this template call page--services.tpl.php. And also you can overwrite the index page layout by creating page--front.tpl.php template. Done!
What you are saying you want to change is all styling. And you know you can do a page to look drastically different with CSS... and you can do it that way depending on your chosen Drupal theme.
Now, with the Chrome Inspector (or FF inspector) look at the body tag, it probably has many classes which indicates in what page you are, what type of node (if it's a node) or if it's an admin section, or an anonymous user.
Using those specific classes you can style a frontpage, or a view, or a node, or anything, without installing more modules... with some limitations because you can't change rendered HTML this way.
Finally, don't get scared by using modules in Drupal, it's how Drupal works and it works pretty well. The thing is to install the best tools to increase your productivity, and Drupal have excellent options to change your theming and content like Display Suite (like #BaikHo suggested).
Hope that helps.
PD: Using the less module and with custom your theme you can have LESS css which is considerably faster than using only CSS, and because it's integrated with Drupal you can theme make everything even faster. Give it a try.
Stuck at a trivial problem in Grails 3.1.5: Show the fields of a domain object, excluding one of them, including a transient property. Yes, this is my first Grails 3 project after many years with previous versions.
The generated show.gsp contains
<f:display bean="rfaPdffile"/>
This will include a field that may contain megabytes of XML. It should never be shown interactively. The display: false constraint is no longer in the docs, and seems to be silenty ignored.
Next I tried explicitly naming the fields:
<f:with bean="rfaPdffile">
<f:display property='fileName'/>
<f:display property='pageCount'/>
...
</f:with>
This version suprisingly displays the values without any markup whatsoever. Changing display to field,
<f:with bean="rfaPdffile">
<f:field property='fileName'/>
<f:field property='pageCount'/>
...
</f:with>
sort of works, but shows editable values. So does f:all.
In addition I tried adding other attributes to f:display: properties (like in f:table), except (like in f:all). I note in passing that those two attributes have different syntax for similar purposes.
In the Field plugin docs my use case is explicitly mentioned as a design goal. I must have missed something obvious.
My aim is to quickly throw together a prototype gui, postponing the details until later. Clues are greatly appreciated
If I understood you correctly, you want to have all bean properties included in the gsp but the one with the "megabytes of XML" should not be displayed to the user?
If that is the case you can do:
f:with bean="beanName"
f:field property="firstPropertyName"
f:field property="secondPropertyName"
And the one you don't wish to display:
g:hiddenField name="propertyName" value="${beanName.propertyName?}"
f:with
So list all the properties as f:field or f:display and put the one you don't wish to display in a g:hiddenField Grails tag
You can also try:
f:field property="propertyName"
widget-hidden="true"
but the Label is not hidden in this case.
Hope it helps
My own answer: "use the force, read the source". The f:display tag has two rather obvious bugs. I will submit a pull request as soon as I can.
Bugs aside, the documentation does not mention that the plugin may pick up the "scaffold" static property from the domain, if it has one. Its value should be a map. Its "exclude" key may define a list of property names (List of String) to be excluded. This probably works already for the "f:all" tag; bug correction is needed for the "f:display" tag.
My subjective impression is that the fields plugin is in a tight spot. It is intertwined with the Grails architecture, making it sensitive to changes in Grails internals. It is also required by the standard scaffolding plugin, making it very visible. Thus it needs constant attention from maintainers, a position not to be envied. Even now conventions for default constraints seem to have changed somewhere between Grails 3.0.9 and 3.1.7.
Performance of the fields plugin is sensitive to the total number of plugins in the app where it is used. It searches all plugins dynamically for templates.
For the wish list I would prefer stricter tag naming. The main tags should be verbs. There are two main actions, show and edit. For each action there are two main variants, single bean or multiple beans.
My answer is that at present (2 March 2017) there is no answer. I have searched the Net high and low. For the index (list) and create and edit views, the fields plugin works well enough. A certain field can be easily excluded from the create and edit views, relatively easily from the list view (by listing those that should show), and in no way I could find from the show view. This is such a common need that one would suspect it will be addressed soon. Also, easily showing derived values in the show view, like 'total' for an invoice. One can do that by adding an ordered list with a list item showing the value below the generated ordered list of values, but that is kind of a hack.
In some ways, the old way was easier. Yes, it generated long views, but they were generated and didn't have to be done by the programmer - just custom touches here and there.
Can someone give me a suggestion on how to add another link to the "operations"-cell on admin/node?
I have written a module which copies a specific node and now i need in addition to the links "edit" and "delete" a "copy"-link.
Can´t find any useful hints in the Drupal API.
The solution is to download admin_menu module. It contains administration views (you also need to enable it in Modules), which changes default content grid to the custom view. You can then go to Views and modify the admin/content view as you want.
If by "admin/node" you actually mean "admin/content/node", I think you're looking for hook_node_operations().
http://api.drupal.org/api/drupal/modules!node!node.api.php/function/hook_node_operations/7