Replies: 0 comments 1 reply
-
Doh! I just saw this bit in the Docs:
So this is probably just a case of me not reading the Docs adequately [facepalm], coupled with a bit of ‘sea of text’ syndrome. But there is still a bit of confusion around single vs double curly braces. Is it perhaps that |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
The docs on Entry URI formats are helpful but I feel they could be more so.
I realise that this bit:
…in principle means that anything is possible – I can query anything right!? – and one can't document everything anyone might want to do!
However, I feel that this set of possibilities warrants a bit more prominence, and maybe a bit of fleshing out to make clearer the kinds of possibilities and some seemingly undocumented scope.
For example, here is what I've discovered today.
I have a 2-level Structure in which there's a slug schema of:
And I don't want a URL schema of
/thing/thing-topic
because nowthing
is present in the URL twice, and I would preferthing/topic
. But how to achieve that?Can I use
|replace
in the URI format to get rid ofthing-
? I don't know.I decided to use a category group to define
topic
slugs (devoid of theirthing
context), and atopic
entry field to assign it.I noticed the bit in the docs about
parent.uri
so I guessed that maybe I could referenceentry.topic
in the URI format:…but that didn't work. So as a wild guess I tried leaving the reference to
entry
out:…and that did work. Hurray!
But how could I know that
entry
in this context is redundant?I’m not suggesting this is a good example, but I describe it to highlight how guessing and messing around is not a great way to discover what is and isn't possible.
I don't know if that's addressable, but maybe it is?
Thanks for an insanely flexible app though :)
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions