wakabayashi

I am still working days (and nights) to push my theme forward. The progress is quite amazing. IMO there is no doubt, that we should go for FrontEnd component system. This in combination with fast ajax requests can lead to a damn good result. And the good: the core needs almost no adjustments. I have only a few very simple overrides... Here is a sneak preview of a fast customer journey: genzo_theme-preview.webm I work often with modals. This gives a much better user experience (especially on mobile devices). But in general it's all about the usage of predefined components: https://www.genzo.ch/tb-framework Here you can see the module "tb_framework". As you click through the Elements/Components you will see a lot of elements, that you saw in the video. Any theme/module can use these components as well. I won't publish my theme/components as they should be unique for my store. But I could open source the technique behind it. Especially the "tb_framework" module. Steps to get a similair result like mine: Somebody builds default components for "tb_framework". Best would be without any framework. Actually I did mine only with TailwindCSS, which means, that it's also possible without any at all. Only exception might be slider functionality. (Ofc I could support this task with my components). A new theme from scratch is created (or maybe existing cisero), that implements the components from "tb_framework". For the theme imo any framework can be used. Core modules are adjusted to use components from "tb_framework" module. (This is not too hard and actually quite fun) My opinion: As this is damn much work, I don't think we will find one guy, that makes this in his free time. A crowdfunding might be needed.

Oh, it's only a couple of weeks ago, when I switched to PHP 8.1 from PHP 7.3 ^^ Sounds like a lot of new work. I will test these things in early 2023...

Man it's not my day. 🤕 Sorry! Yeah it's there with the right prefix - obviously. Looks clean, right?

Maybe other merchants can check, if they have it. 🤔

This table does not exist for me 🙃 #1146 - Tabelle 'tb_scheduled_task' existiert nicht And core updater doesn't show anything wrong under "database".

Yes there is no doubt about this. It was already there, when we switched to PS. And this feels like last life ^^ I guess, that @musicmaster would also prefer the flag beeing on "shipped". But yeah I see your point.

@datakick right. It depends on countries and also, if the order is already paid. As I said: we learnt to live with it. It surely nothing that is worth a big rewrite right now. It's better to have a clean return/refund process as well. Then you shouldn't be in need to edit any invoices.

As I said imo it would be better to have it blocked, when the order is shipped. When you generated the shipping label, the products are still in your hands. In this time a lot can happen (customer calls, sends email and so on). It's a typical thing, that a dev doesn't expect, but in practice it happens a lot.

It's not shipped, but when the delivery-slip was generated. I personally don't like this much. Shipped would be more logical imo. But we learnt to live with it ^^

You need to download the error file and upload it in the logs (or alternatively you enable debug mode)... Then you post the error here. Should be an easy fix.

Yeah, cisero is a clean/great looking theme. It could become the default one. But to force the usage of a certain framework is not wishful imo. I still like the component approach. It is, what I am setting up on my new shop. It's not easy, but it offers many advantages. But this would be (earliest) a project for tb 2.0.

Thanks for the report! On github we know about that:https://github.com/thirtybees/thirtybees/issues/1468. Maybe it's better to discuss the code related stuff there 🙂

@Pietroalberto I guess the important question for you is: Is it more important to sell products or to get bookings? By answering this question you will chose TB or qloapps as your cms. Afterwards you will extend the chosen cms by a module (TB) or Add-ON(qloapps). Combining both needs probably a lot of custom work... Maybe if you give more information, what you actually want to achieve, we can give you a better advise, how to set it up.

Ok, fine. I won't take any action then. Takes too much time, to guess, what could be the reason.

That's not a good assumption. The link_rewrite is defined under SEO tab (in product form). This should be unique. I guess you, that you are using multiple times the same value there. In the BO under preferences, you should even have a point "Duplicate Urls" or so. You can also check there, if there are some issues...

From experience I can say, that very strange things happens, when you have dupliacte urls. Few weeks ago I had the following: - shop1.com/quiz -> was leading to a module site (as intended) - shop2.com/quiz -> was leading to an error like "product no more active". The strange thing was, that the dispatcher in shop2 was leading to the product and in shop1 to the module site. I still don't know, what the difference was there actually. But just wanted to make clear, that duplicate urls are very tricky and confusing.

Aha! One second. Your are importing xlsx files directly into PhpMyAdmin or so? Well then I am even more sure, that it is an link_rewrite problem. Please check this column for duplicates.

Ok I have to give up then. I don't know, what you are actually doing. Your naming "upload" / "1 by one" probably confuses me. I don't even know, if the core allows xlsx files. Cause my BO says: "Allowed formats: .csv" IMO you are using multiple times the same rewrite_link.

This is wrong. As I said... There were recent changes: https://github.com/thirtybees/thirtybees/commit/b13ae185818fa83bb65813fc58bd64a159e36e9f So if you want to get this fixed, please give us reproducable data...

Hm ok. It seems to me, that you prefer to stay on 1.3 than fixxing the problem. Sounds now like an auto-import issue. There were some changes made in the recent past...

Actually I would bet, that its a rewrite problem. What are the urls of the both?

I dont get it. Have you messed image 3 and 4? Then it would make more sense to me. In general I would suspect a rewrite problem (same rewrite link) or just try to reindex the search.

Cool! But that means it's already working out for you well or are there any clear improving needs on your side?

To prevent such unwanted issue, I can give you this adivse: First make a clone of your current system. Long time ago I created a video tutorial (Offtopic: wtf it has over 1150 views!?), one part is about cloning If you can, make the clone with a subdomain. If you can, only switch the php version of the subdomain. In my case this was possible. It's probably depending on your hosting subscription. It helps to test without any risk at all.

Ok, I will make a PR in the future. For me there is no problem, if it's later factored to a module. It surely makes sense for feature that aren't used by the majority of merchants. I am always surprised how many features are just used by a little percentage of merchants. Same is true for ASM. But I guess the only reason is, that they are either a little buggy or unfinished. Cause return handling modules on prestashop store seem to be quite popular.