1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
|
[[!template id=plugin name=comments author="[[Simon_McVittie|smcv]]"]]
[[!tag type/useful]]
This plugin adds "blog-style" comments. The intention is that on a non-wiki site
(like a blog) you can lock all pages for admin-only access, then allow otherwise
unprivileged (or perhaps even anonymous) users to comment on posts.
Comments are saved as internal pages, so they can never be edited through the CGI,
only by direct committers. Currently, comments are always in [[ikiwiki/markdown]].
> So, why do it this way, instead of using regular wiki pages in a
> namespace, such as `$page/comments/*`? Then you could use [[plugins/lockedit]] to
> limit editing of comments in more powerful ways. --[[Joey]]
>> Er... I suppose so. I'd assumed that these pages ought to only exist as inlines
>> rather than as individual pages (same reasoning as aggregated posts), though.
>>
>> lockedit is actually somewhat insufficient, since `check_canedit()`
>> doesn't distinguish between creation and editing; I'd have to continue to use
>> some sort of odd hack to allow creation but not editing.
>>
>> I also can't think of any circumstance where you'd want a user other than
>> admins (~= git committers) and possibly the commenter (who we can't check for
>> at the moment anyway, I don't think?) to be able to edit comments - I think
>> user expectations for something that looks like ordinary blog comments are
>> likely to include "others can't put words into my mouth".
>>
>> My other objection to using a namespace is that I'm not particularly happy about
>> plugins consuming arbitrary pieces of the wiki namespace - /discussion is bad
>> enough already. Indeed, this very page would accidentally get matched by rules
>> aiming to control comment-posting... :-) --[[smcv]]
>> The best reason to keep the pages internal seems to me to be that you
>> don't want the overhead of every comment spawning its own wiki page.
>> The worst problem with it though is that you have to assume the pages
>> are mdwn (or `default_pageext`) and not support other formats.
>> By the way, I think that who can post comments should be controllable by
>> the existing plugins opendiscussion, anonok, signinedit, and lockedit. Allowing
>> posting comments w/o any login, while a nice capability, can lead to
>> spam problems. So, use `check_canedit` as at least a first-level check?
>> --[[Joey]]
When using this plugin, you should also enable [[htmlscrubber]] and either [[htmltidy]]
or [[htmlbalance]]. Directives are filtered out by default, to avoid commenters slowing
down the wiki by causing time-consuming processing. As long as the recommended plugins
are enabled, comment authorship should hopefully be unforgeable by CGI users.
> I'm not sure that raw html should be a problem, as long as the
> htmlsanitizer and htmlbalanced plugins are enabled. I can see filtering
> out directives, as a special case. --[[Joey]]
>> Right, if I sanitize each post individually, with htmlscrubber and either htmltidy
>> or htmlbalance turned on, then there should be no way the user can forge a comment;
>> I was initially wary of allowing meta directives, but I think those are OK, as long
>> as the comment template puts the \[[!meta author]] at the *end*. Disallowing
>> directives is more a way to avoid commenters causing expensive processing than
>> anything else, at this point.
>>
>> I've rebased the plugin on master, made it sanitize individual posts' content
>> and removed the option to disallow raw HTML. --[[smcv]]
>> There might be some use cases for other directives, such as img, in
>> comments.
>>
>> I don't know if meta is "safe" (ie, guaranteed to be inexpensive and not
>> allow users to do annoying things) or if it will continue to be in the
>> future. Hard to predict really, all that can be said with certainty is
>> all directives will contine to be inexpensive and safe enough that it's
>> sensible to allow users to (ab)use them on open wikis.
>> --[[Joey]]
When comments have been enabled generally, you still need to mark which pages
can have comments, by including the `\[[!comments]]` directive in them. By default,
this directive expands to a "post a comment" link plus an `\[[!inline]]` with
the comments.
> I don't like this, because it's hard to explain to someone why they have
> to insert this into every post to their blog. Seems that the model used
> for discussion pages could work -- if comments are enabled, automatically
> add the comment posting form and comments to the end of each page.
> --[[Joey]]
>> I don't think I'd want comments on *every* page (particularly, not the
>> front page). Perhaps a pagespec in the setup file, where the default is "*"?
>> Then control freaks like me could use "link(tags/comments)" and tag pages
>> as allowing comments.
>>
>>> Yes, I think a pagespec is the way to go. --[[Joey]]
>>
>> The model used for discussion pages does require patching the existing
>> page template, which I was trying to avoid - I'm not convinced that having
>> every possible feature hard-coded there really scales (and obviously it's
>> rather annoying while this plugin is on a branch). --[[smcv]]
>>> Using the template would allow customising the html around the comments
>>> which seems like a good thing?
The plugin adds a new [[ikiwiki/PageSpec]] match type, `postcomment`, for use
with `anonok_pagespec` from the [[plugins/anonok]] plugin or `locked_pages` from
the [[plugins/lockedit]] plugin. Typical usage would be something like:
locked_pages => "!postcomment(*)"
to allow non-admin users to comment on pages, but not edit anything. You can also do
anonok_pages => "postcomment(*)"
to allow anonymous comments (the IP address will be used as the "author").
> This is still called postcomment, although I've renamed the rest of the plugin
> to comments as suggested on #ikiwiki --[[smcv]]
Optional parameters to the comments directive:
* `commit=no`: by default, comments are committed to version control. Use this to
disable commits.
* `allowdirectives=yes`: by default, IkiWiki directives are filtered out. Use this
to allow directives (avoid enabling any [[plugins/type/slow]] directives if you
do this).
* `closed=yes`: use this to prevent new comments while still displaying existing ones.
* `atom`, `rss`, `feeds`, `feedshow`, `timeformat`, `feedonly`: the same as for [[plugins/inline]]
This plugin aims to close the [[todo]] item "[[todo/supporting_comments_via_disussion_pages]]",
and is currently available from [[smcv]]'s git repository on git.pseudorandom.co.uk (it's the
`postcomment` branch). A demo wiki with the plugin enabled is running at
<http://www.pseudorandom.co.uk/2008/ikiwiki/demo/>.
Known issues:
* Needs code review
* The access control via postcomment() is rather strange
* There is some common code cargo-culted from other plugins (notably inline and editpage) which
should probably be shared
* If the comments directive is removed from a page, comments can still be made on that page,
and will be committed but not displayed; to disable comments properly you have to set the
closed="yes" directive parameter (and refresh the wiki), *then* remove the directive if
desired
> I haven't done a detailed code review, but I will say I'm pleased you
> avoided re-implementing inline! --[[Joey]]
|