You are missing our premiere tool bar navigation system! Register and use it for FREE!

NukeCops  
•  Home •  Downloads •  Gallery •  Your Account •  Forums • 
Readme First
- Readme First! -

Read and follow the rules, otherwise your posts will be closed
Modules
· Home
· FAQ
· Buy a Theme
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Bookmarks
· Columbia
· Community
· Donations
· Downloads
· Feedback
· Forums
· PHP-Nuke HOWTO
· Private Messages
· Search
· Statistics
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Theme Gallery
· Top
· Topics
· Your Account
Who's Online
There are currently, 401 guest(s) and 15 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
Nuke Cops :: View topic - Maximum number of admins [ ]
 Forum FAQ  •  Search  •   •  Memberlist  •  Usergroups   •  Register  •  Profile •    •  Log in to check your private messages  •  Log in

 
Post new topic  Reply to topicprinter-friendly view
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
jimmo
Corporal
Corporal


Joined: Feb 14, 2004
Posts: 60

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:49 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Hi All!

I am running 7.6 and apparently it seems that there is a limit to the number of administrators you can have. The admins column in the nuke_modules table is a varchar(255). Although this might seem like a lot of characters, the name field for the account is used and not username. That is the long form is used. Thus there are generally few possible admins (since the name is usually longer than the username) .

To me, it makes no sense at all to use name instead of username. Personally, I think it would make much more sense to use the uid which is even smaller.

I also noticed that if there is not enough room the name is simply truncated, but is still added to the list without an error message. So, we have a mechanism that allows you to create a condition that cannot possible work. In fact, if you had two users, for example, "Joe Johns" and "Joe Johnson" and wanted to give admin rights to "Joe Johnson" it is theoretically possible that you actually give it to "Joe Johns". To me, that's a bug.

Is there anyway around this? Considering all the places where it is used, I am not happy with changing the code to use some other field. At this point the best solution for me seems to be to simply make the name=username. However, another possibility would be to increase the site of the column. Does anyone see any problems with that?

Regards,

jimmo

_________________
The Linux Knowledge Base and Tutorial project is looking for volunteers: http://www.linux-tutorial.info
Find all posts by jimmoView user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
spottedhog
Captain
Captain


Joined: Apr 30, 2004
Posts: 561


PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:06 am Reply with quoteBack to top

There is so much wrong in what you stated that I am not sure where to start, or to even start......

Let's say the average admin name was 20 characters (which is probably twice as much as what is reality). At 20 characters, you would still have 12, count'em, 12 admins for that specific module.

Why on God's green earth would you have 12 admins for any single nuke module?

Just leave the code alone, consider reducing the amount of admins you currently have per module, and all will be OK.

In other words, I have been around this Nuke code for 2 to 3 years now, and never once have I heard anyone complain about not having enough room for all the admins for a specific module.

_________________
SMF-Nuke admin

SMF and PHP Nuke integration is ready! Take a look at it by clicking on the link above.
Find all posts by spottedhogView user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
jimmo
Corporal
Corporal


Joined: Feb 14, 2004
Posts: 60

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:17 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Excuse me, but what exactly is "wrong" with wanting to configure your system to meet the needs of your environment? The fact that you have not had a reason to need to do this or that no one has complained does not equate to some absolute that wanting more admins is somehow "wrong." I too "have been around this Nuke code for 2 to 3 years now" and am used to being able to configure it to suit my needs. In this case, I ran into a road block. On two sites I administer, I don't need or want more than two admins.

However, this is the website of a sports club. Each of the 10 section leaders, plus the three on the board and a couple of others need to have the ability to update content, downloads, and news. If they don't, they have to "submit" it and wait until someone gets around to "approving" it. Experience has shown me in the over two decades I have worked with computers, the harder you make updating documentation (e.g. info on a web site) the less motivated people are going to be to keep it updated. I see this problem almost daily. Since all of the people doing this are volunteers, it makes it even more imperative that updating their material is easy. Plus, much of the information is time sensitive.

Requiring that, for example, the tennis section get "approval" from the soccer section is what I personally would call "wrong" and not wanting to allow the tennis section to be able to approve their own contributions. Arbitrarily choosing one section over the other to *not* give admin rights to because of a limitation in the software is what I see as "wrong" and not the desire so treat them equally. So, by "reducing the amount of admins" I will *not* be "OK", it will cause conflicts within the club.

Granted that having a large number of people updating documentation *might* lead to things being non-standard. However, experience has shown me that if the standards are defined at the beginning and are easy to adhere to the few cases where standards are not followed are worth the greater benefit of having up-to-date information.

So that I understand you completely, just what else belongs to there being "so much wrong"? Thanks for your time.

Regards,

jimmo

_________________
The Linux Knowledge Base and Tutorial project is looking for volunteers: http://www.linux-tutorial.info
Find all posts by jimmoView user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
spottedhog
Captain
Captain


Joined: Apr 30, 2004
Posts: 561


PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:56 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Here is my point....... You are the exception to the rule. Probably 99.9999% of Nuke website owners/users will never have your issue.

Maybe it was just my take on your posting, but you seemed to be chastizing the code because it was not "everything for everyone". FB, the nuke author, did not do a lot of things right, but I doubt if he ever envisioned anyone needing that many admins per module.

Since varchar has a max of 255 as you probably know, your proposed solution of using the field "aid" would use less space. You said a lot of places use that specific code. I do not think that is true. I think you are only looking at one area, but of course I may be wrong. I am thinking this is used only in the authors.php file. These changes would not be easy, but could be done.

Not sure if changing the field from varchar to a txt field would cause any problem.

_________________
SMF-Nuke admin

SMF and PHP Nuke integration is ready! Take a look at it by clicking on the link above.
Find all posts by spottedhogView user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
jimmo
Corporal
Corporal


Joined: Feb 14, 2004
Posts: 60

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:59 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Excuse me, but what is your problem? I know that I can be abrasive at times, but your reaction is totally beyond my comprehension. I have re-read my post several times and I am at a complete loss to see "Why on God's green earth" you are reacting so aggressively? So what if I am the only person who needs this functionality? That's one of the beauties of open source. It's free. As in you are free to do what you want with it. Why does that give you a reason to jump on my like that???

How in the world did you leap from my comment about a security flaw to 'chastizing the code because it was not "everything for everyone"'? I am still shaking my head in amazement.

Again, what is it in my post that you were referring to by "so much wrong"? Paragraph 1 is more or less a statement of fact. Paragraph 2 is my opinion. Paragraph 3 is a statement of fact since, "as you probably know", anytime there is the potential for giving access that you did not intend is a security risk. (Whether or not the author envisioned a particular usage.) The last sentence of para 3 is an opinion. The last paragraph is a statement about my feelings on changing the code and a question about changing a column in the database.

So that I can change the way I ask things in the future, what is it in my post that caused you to act so aggressively and say that "there is so much wrong"?

_________________
The Linux Knowledge Base and Tutorial project is looking for volunteers: http://www.linux-tutorial.info
Find all posts by jimmoView user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic  Reply to topicprinter-friendly view
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Ported by Nuke Cops © 2003 www.nukecops.com
:: FI Theme :: PHP-Nuke theme by coldblooded (www.nukemods.com) ::
Powered by TOGETHER TEAM srl ITALY http://www.togetherteam.it - DONDELEO E-COMMERCE http://www.DonDeLeo.com - TUTTISU E-COMMERCE http://www.tuttisu.it
Web site engine's code is Copyright © 2002 by PHP-Nuke. All Rights Reserved. PHP-Nuke is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
Page Generation: 0.047 Seconds - 352 pages served in past 5 minutes. Nuke Cops Founded by Paul Laudanski (Zhen-Xjell)
:: FI Theme :: PHP-Nuke theme by coldblooded (www.nukemods.com) ::