Per content configuration

Thanks for the patch, but I'm really not sure if we want this feature, it would be great to hear about what other maintainers think about it.

let's postpone this for the next major version

bad status, sorry

+++ vud.module	9 Jun 2010 11:51:13 -0000
@@ -193,3 +193,30 @@ function vud_ctools_plugin_directory($mo
+/**
+ * Helper function to save status for a piece of content.
+ */
+function vud_status_save($type, $content_id, $status) {
+  db_query("SELECT status FROM {vud_status} WHERE type = '%s' AND content_id = %d", $type, $content_id);
+  if (db_affected_rows() > 0) {
+    db_query("UPDATE {vud_status} SET status = %d WHERE type = '%s' AND content_id = %d", $status, $type, $content_id);
+  }
+  else {
+    db_query("INSERT INTO {vud_status} (type, content_id, status) VALUES ('%s', %d, %d)", $type, $content_id, $status);
+  }
+}

I think you want to use drupal_write_record()

+++ vud_node/vud_node.module	9 Jun 2010 11:51:13 -0000
@@ -132,7 +155,7 @@ function vud_node_nodeapi(&$node, $op, $
+      if ((($can_edit=user_access('use vote up/down on nodes')) || user_access('view vote up/down count on nodes')) && vud_node_is_valid_node($node)) {

can you please explain why we need that extra validation there.. I think we can just call the function and validate it later, since in that way we are changing the logic. Not sure about it, so if you can explain it would be great.

+++ vud_node/vud_node.module	9 Jun 2010 11:51:13 -0000
@@ -293,3 +316,131 @@ function vud_node_link($type, $object, $
+function vud_node_is_valid_node($node, $reset = FALSE) {

I'm not sure about the name of this function, since it is interacting with cache. BTW why are we using static $cache instead of cache_get/cache_set. It would be great if you can elaborate about the cache for node types and nids associated with vud_node.

+++ vud_node/vud_node.module	9 Jun 2010 11:51:13 -0000
@@ -293,3 +316,131 @@ function vud_node_link($type, $object, $
+/**
+ * Implementation of hook_content_extra_fields().
+ */
+function vud_node_content_extra_fields($type_name) {
+  if (vud_node_is_valid_type($type_name)) {
+    $extra = array();
+    $extra['vud'] = array(
+      'label' => t('Vote Up/Down'),
+      'description' => t('Vote Up/Down settings'),
+      'weight' => 0,
+    );
+  }
+  return $extra;
+}

I think this piece is another patch for #582624: Expose widget to CCK fields reordering

Maybe we also want a hook_update_N to populate the vud_status table?

Powered by Dreditor.

dixon_: Thanks for the updates!

mm strange error or testbot, but the patch looks good, let me comment a little more

+++ vud.install	10 Jun 2010 15:02:46 -0000
@@ -17,7 +17,41 @@ function vud_install() {
+      'vudid_type_content_id' => array('vudid', 'type', 'content_id'),

since vudid is serial, we only need the other two as one unique

+++ vud_node/vud_node.module	10 Jun 2010 15:02:47 -0000
@@ -132,8 +153,7 @@ function vud_node_nodeapi(&$node, $op, $
+      if ((($can_edit=user_access('use vote up/down on nodes')) || user_access('view vote up/down count on nodes')) && vud_node_is_valid_node($node)) {

since in this place we have $node->vud_status set(on 'load'), maybe is better to validate that value and the $node_type/call-the-new-type-cached-validate ;-)

+++ vud_node/vud_node.module	10 Jun 2010 15:02:47 -0000
@@ -248,8 +264,10 @@ function vud_node_link($type, $object, $
+      if (!vud_node_is_valid_node($node)) {
+        return;
+      }

IMHO it's cleaner to return an empty array

+++ vud_node/vud_node.module	10 Jun 2010 15:02:47 -0000
@@ -293,3 +311,119 @@ function vud_node_link($type, $object, $
+function vud_node_is_valid_node($node, $reset = FALSE) {

A little naming change, IMHO it's better to use vud_node_is_valid_node.

+++ vud_node/vud_node.module	10 Jun 2010 15:02:47 -0000
@@ -293,3 +311,119 @@ function vud_node_link($type, $object, $
+function vud_node_is_valid_type($type_name, $reset = FALSE) {

The same little naming change, IMHO it's better to use vud_node_is_valid_node_type.

On other comments:

we need to make a hook_update_N() implementation to add the new table.

Powered by Dreditor.

Is anyone working on doing this for comments too?

I like this idea, and wanted to chime in with a feature request. It would be nice to have per content type access according to role, letting anonymous users vote on some content types but not others for instance.

I have this working on a per node basis but would love to have it work this way for the comments too. I haven't quite figured out how to apply it to the comments yet. Is this something you have worked on yet?

I like this idea, and wanted to chime in with a feature request. It would be nice to have per content type access according to role, letting anonymous users vote on some content types but not others for instance.

Do not hijack issues, please read the guidelines.

What you want is probably solved by other issue #877392: Add hook that allows modules to alter voting permissions already committed to 6.x-3.x

Thanks marvil and apologies. I will make a new thread next time

No more features for 6.x-3.x now that it is the stable branch, moving to 7.x-1.x as postponed until basic port is ready.