In some contexts, site()->index(true) returns no drafts

Kirby 3 Issues šŸ›
#1

Interesting observation, and Iā€™m wondering what might be the reason:

When calling site()->index(true) from within a Site Method, it returns all pages including drafts, as expected; however, when calling the same from within a page.update:after hook, it only returns listed pages, despite the true boolean.

Would a kind soul be able to shed some light on why site()->index(true) behaves different when it is called within a hook? ā€¦and: How can I get an index of all pages including drafts from within such hook? (I tried kirby()->site()->index(true) as well - same result, drafts missing). Thank you! :pray:

#2

I canā€™t reproduce the issue, following code snippet works for me :thinking:

return [
    'debug' => true,
    'hooks' => [
        'page.update:after' => function ($newPage, $oldPage) {
            var_dump(site()->index(true)); // i can see all pages that included drafts
        }
    ]
];
#3

Thank you for your reply! I can confirm that your snippet works fine in a fresh Starterkit.

However, in my project this barebone hook, too, returns only listed pages while using var_dump(site()->index(true)) elsewhere (e.g. calling that in a template) keeps returning everything incl. drafts :worried:

ā€¦there must be something in my setup that affects how ->index(true) behaves.

I tried comparing var_dump(site()) in both contexts (the hook and a template) to see whether there is a difference in the site object returned. There are slight differences (like the homePage property being null in the hook context etc.), but these are also present when I make the same comparison in that fresh Starterkit where everything works; i.e. these all seem to be as they should and are not the cause of my issue.

Iā€™ll keep investigating and report back if I ever find out what causes this. If you have any pointers as to where to look (something in a site configuration that might affect how site()->index() or more specifically the $drafts = true boolean behaves) that would of course be most welcome, but I currently consider this not a Kirby issue, but something messed up from elsewhere. I ā€œjustā€ need to figure out where :male_detective:

#4

Ok, I found the culprit, but not the true reason (thatā€™s beyond my technical understanding of Kirbyā€™s inner workings):

After meticulously debugging my project, it turned out that calling site()->index(true) from within a page.update:after hook would not contain drafts for one particular page type only. I then went through the entire blueprint (by removing small portions, one at a time) and eventually learned that this field caused the odd behaviour:

tags:
  type: tags
  label: Tags
  options: query
  query: site.index.pluck("tags", ",", true)

When the page.update:after hook is triggered after updating a page where above field is present in the blueprint, site()->index(true) would only contain listed pages. Triggering the same hook from any page whose blueprint does not include that field, drafts are included in the collection returned. As soon as I remove this field, site()->index(true) returns the complete index of the site, including drafts, also for the blueprint in question.

I was able to narrow it down even further: the problem seems to stem from the query: site.index.pluck("tags", ",", true) ā€“ as soon as I replace that with any query that does not involve index (e.g. query: site.children.pluck("tags", ",", true), which is of course nonsensical, but just for proof-of-concept), the index call from within that hook works as expected.

Did I just encounter a very odd bug here, @byybora ? To summarize: it appears that the collection returned by site()->index(true) does not include drafts as specified if called by a page.update:after hook for a page whose blueprint includes an option query that makes use of index.

#5

Could you create an issue on GitHub please, that sounds like something nastyā€¦

#6

Sure, Iā€™ll be happy to do that!

ā€¦just wanted to first give it a moment for somebody to chime in here and point out that Iā€™m overlooking something completely obvious :upside_down_face:

#7
1 Like