radgh

Hi again and thanks for the update!

Here’s what I did:

• I added the three IP addresses, as well as my own IP, to a whitelist.
• I made it so account pages can be accessed by the IP without being logged in and fixed the navigation so it always uses the same menu with the most links.
• I added links to the footer to the account page so the spider can find it from the front page
• I confirmed this is all working by testing it on my own IP address while incognito, and it seemed to work.

Once I scanned using the cloud tool, it found the same 320 links as it did last time. It seems like the IP address workaround didn’t work.

EDIT: Nevermind! Of course I forgot the site was cached, so I cleared the cache and the cloud tool worked. It found a healthy number of 4143 links, 18 of which are broken. Success!

Thank you for the help with all of this. I’ll close this out. I appreciate the support!

• This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by radgh.
• This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by radgh. Reason: fixed it!

Hi Saurabh (@wpmudev-support7),

Yes it’s a traditional custom post type. The template checks if you are logged in and have access to the page based on your role and other information. I can absolutely make it bypass those checks so the pages appear “public” for a certain IP, user agent, or for requests with a secret query arg. Any of those options work.

Could you let me know (or email me) that information, and I can set it up and try again?

Thank you!

Radley

Thanks Patrick,

I disabled the front page redirect temporarily and started the scan with the cloud tool. That worked, but it completed too early. I don’t think it scanned any of the private pages. It found 320 total links, but one account page has 169 URLs itself so I think this number should be much larger.

I then set it to the local scanner and forced a re-check from the advanced tab. I don’t know how to start a scan with local so I just left it on the dashboard as it seemed to slowly make progress. After a few minutes it ended and only found 37 urls this way

I sent the log and additional information to the email address you provided. The main issue right now, is that the scanner doesn’t seem to scan the account pages. Maybe it’s because those pages require you to be logged in. Not sure if that is supported. I’ll await a reply to the ticket, but I’ll post this here to keep up to date.

Thanks,

Radley

Thanks for the update! The issue relating to Composer makes sense and I hadn’t thought of that. We have a few old plugins that no longer get updated on this site, so that was probably the issue.

However after updating today, the problem has gone away. For some reason I had to reconfigure the plugin, but that was easy.

All is good now. Thank you!!

I had the same symptoms appear on a site today that recently was updated. Same versions as posted by druideniggi. Mikko’s fix worked for me but I thought I should share some information to help out.

I narrowed down the issue to woocommerce file wc-template-functions.php, inside of the function wc_setup_loop(). In this function, it pulls in the “total” (number of posts) but that was being loaded as zero the first time it gets called. WooCommerce cached that even though the $wp_query is updated later to have the correct number of results. So even though my page says “17 products found”, WooCommerce thinks the loop is empty and doesn’t run. Even though $wp_query has been updated and has 17 results.

The solution is wc_reset_loop() which is exactly what Mikko’s code does. That fix corrects that issue by resetting the “loop” (what I described in the 2nd paragraph). Thank you Mikko! This fix worked for me.

For everyone else I encourage you to make sure that code is actually running. There’s plenty of ways to do it but I’ll share a quick and dirty way. Only use this method if you have FTP/SSH access.

To start, just add echo "TESTING"; exit; at the end of Mikko’s function. It should break the page and just say “testing” with no products to display. That will tell you Mikko’s code is running and so your issue is probably different. But if you do not get a broken page that says “testing” after uploading that change, the function is not running. It could be that your page is cached, you put it in a file that isn’t being included, or something else. This is just some basic “sanity testing”. Obviously remove that code when you tested.

An alternative fix, much less elegant, is to copy the WC template “archive-product.php” to your theme’s woocommerce templates folder if you don’t already have it there. Edit that template and just before “woocommerce_product_loop_start()” you should add “wc_reset_loop();”. This is effectively identical to Mikko’s solution but if your hook wasn’t working, this is basically hard-coding that patch into this specific template. There is no reason why the should work when Mikko’s did not, unless you put Mikko’s code in the wrong spot. But it’s worth trying anyway as it will tell you if it is the same problem.

Hope this helps

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by radgh.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by radgh.

Oh ok. It was just link to this plugin’s github.

@vmarko I have the same problem as the others mentioned.

We are using a multi-site in this case which might be related. Just installed W3tc. I think the problem is that the function “w3tc_beforeupload_unbind” is in a javascript file that is enqueued on the W3tc settings pages, but nowhere else. If you are on another page the JS isn’t loaded, but those buttons use that function with an “onclick” handler. So they are trying to use a function that isn’t defined.

It is pretty easy to just ignore this error but I imagine you have a lot of people who get this error sometimes, and they are like “huh that doesn’t work”, then just ignore it and it goes away because they leave the page.

But it should be a straightforward fix. Either include that JS file so the function works, or get rid of that function from the buttons.

FYI I can consistently reproduce it by going to a custom ACF options page, using the Performance dropdown in the top bar, going to Purge All Caches. It redirects to the network admin area (which is where the W3tc settings are for multisites). Then it redirects back to the ACF options page with those messages that were already mentioned.

Those messages that appear have the buttons that call the undefined function. And that’s because the W3tc scripts are loaded on this unrelated ACF options page.

Hope this helps.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by radgh.
• This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by radgh.

@jdembowski Oh, I knew that! It’s just been awhile and I forgot. Thanks for cleaning it up.

Hi John, I just tested with only Redirection active and the Twenty Seventeen theme, everything updated.

I made a video showing what I did, but the feature just doesn’t seem to be working: https://radleysustaire.com/s3/341ub

Oops, I actually posted the generic WordPress function above instead of the Ajax Load More one. But I can’t edit it for some reason. Here is the Ajax Load More function that I meant to post:

/**
 * (AJAX LOAD MORE VERSION OF rs_remove_out_of_stock_products_from_query)
 *
 * @param $args
 *
 * @return array $args
 */
function rs_remove_out_of_stock_products_from_alm( $args ) {
	if ( is_admin() ) return $args;
	
	$post_type = false;
	
	// Get post type, which may be an array or string.
	if ( !empty($args['post_type']) ) {
		if ( is_string($args['post_type']) ) $post_type = $args['post_type'];
		else if ( is_array($args['post_type']) && count($args['post_type']) == 1 ) $post_type = $args['post_type'][0];
	}
	
	// Only affect products
	if ( $post_type !== 'product' ) return $args;
	
	// Set up meta query
	$meta_query = array();
	
	// If a meta_query already exists, keep it -- require those condntions in addition to the stock query
	if ( !empty($args['meta_query']) ) {
		$meta_query = array(
			'relation' => 'AND',
			$args['meta_query']
		);
	}
	
	// Exclude out of stock products
	$meta_query[] = array(
		'key'       => '_stock_status',
		'value'     => 'outofstock',
		'compare'   => 'NOT IN'
	);
	
	$args['meta_query'] = $meta_query;
	
	return $args;
}
add_filter( 'alm_modify_query_args', 'rs_remove_out_of_stock_products_from_alm', 20 );

@knowjoby Go to General > Features > XML Sitemaps and click the question mark next to it. Then click “See the XML Sitemap”. Note that you might need to go to Settings > Permalinks if that page is not found (that’s the issue I described in my last comment).

Also see here:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/elasticbeanstalk-us-west-2-868470985522/ShareX/2018/03/chrome_2018-03-08_18-07-23.png

I usually enable it to edit the sitemap settings. I see there’s a box to toggle sitemaps in “Features” now. That wasn’t working so I was trying to turn it on.

Now I see they are enabled I just tried flushing permalinks and it fixed the problem, I just thought they were disabled! Although yoast should probably flush the permalinks when the plugin gets activated for the first time, this was a fresh install and sitemaps weren’t working even though they were active.

There were previously options to toggle which post types and taxonomies appear in the sitemap before though, I don’t see that anymore. Is that still available? Honestly I rarely used it so a functions.php alternative would suit me just fine if possible. What would you recommend for when I need to adjust that next?

• This reply was modified 6 years, 8 months ago by radgh.
• This reply was modified 6 years, 8 months ago by radgh.

I’m experiencing the same issue on a fresh WP test install with only FakerPress installed. The error message that appears is empty, too:

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/elasticbeanstalk-us-west-2-868470985522/ShareX/2018/02/chrome_2018-02-19_11-25-06.png

I am using Laragon to test locally.

[19-Feb-2018 19:21:51 UTC] PHP Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Class ‘FakerPress\Module\Utils’ not found in D:\laragon\www\wp\wp-content\plugins\fakerpress\modules\user.php:127
Stack trace:
#0 D:\laragon\www\wp\wp-content\plugins\fakerpress\inc\class-fp-ajax.php(81): FakerPress\Module\User->parse_request(5, Array)
#1 D:\laragon\www\wp\wp-includes\class-wp-hook.php(286): FakerPress\Ajax::module_generate(”)
#2 D:\laragon\www\wp\wp-includes\class-wp-hook.php(310): WP_Hook->apply_filters(”, Array)
#3 D:\laragon\www\wp\wp-includes\plugin.php(453): WP_Hook->do_action(Array)
#4 D:\laragon\www\wp\wp-admin\admin-ajax.php(97): do_action(‘wp_ajax_fakerpr…’)
#5 {main}

If I disable line 127 in modules/user.php it works fine. And it looks like that variable immediately gets overwritten anyway so it probably isn’t needed?

Here are lines 126 through 129:

$description_size = Variable::super( $request, array( 'description_size' ), FILTER_UNSAFE_RAW, array( 1, 5 ) );
$description_use_html = Utils::instance()->is_truthy( Variable::super( $request, array( 'use_html' ), FILTER_SANITIZE_STRING, 'off' ) );
$description_use_html = Variable::super( $request, array( 'use_html' ), FILTER_SANITIZE_STRING, 'off' ) === 'on';
$description_html_tags = array_map( 'trim', explode( ',', Variable::super( $request, array( 'html_tags' ), FILTER_SANITIZE_STRING ) ) );

Hope that helps. I’m just going to leave that line commented out and probably won’t need FakerPress again until it’s fixed anyway ??

Ah look at that, impressive filesize difference for this photo with imageoptim. That’s interesting. Not sure if that’s what Google PageSpeed is using to reduce the filesize so far without a noticeable loss in quality. There’s a slightly noticeable quality loss when using imageoptim on low setting. But whoa, 50kb! Neat.

After your informative responses and investigation beyond my own issue, I see you’re doing some great work. I don’t know what will come of ImageOptim but if that helps EWWW at some point, I’m glad I might have at least sparked the idea!

I don’t know any other developer who is knowledgeable about their competitors and is willing to compare them on even ground and even defend them. That shows an impressive attitude.

I decided to add the missing star back in for your plugin. Sure, PSI somehow makes smaller images at this point, but I now feel more confident with EWWW just based on your communication here ??

Thanks!

• This reply was modified 6 years, 9 months ago by radgh.

Thanks for the quick reply. I’m using EWWW with “lossy” jpg compression and default quality level (box is empty, so I assume wp default of 82%). Unless I’m crazy?

Worth mentioning that TinyPNG gives a different result between the WP plugin and their online optimizer (the online optimizer produces a larger file).

Here is the image: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/elasticbeanstalk-us-west-2-868470985522/ShareX/2018/02/original.jpg

It is not an ideal photo for testing compression, but is from a live website that I am trying to optimize.