Before:

After:

To be honest: You should invest a bit more time to test a new release

Code: Select all
with(NavSub1Style=new mm_style()){
fontfamily='Verdana,Arial';
fontstyle='normal';
fontweight='normal';
fontsize='11';
padding=3;
align='left';
offcolor='#FFFFFF';
oncolor='#FFFFFF';
offbgcolor='#C4BF8A';
onbgcolor='#ABA361';
pagecolor='#FFFFFF';
pagebgcolor='#ABA361';
separatorcolor='#343535';
separatorsize='2';
bordercolor='#000000';
borderwidth='1';
borderstyle='raised';
low3dcolor='#ABA361';
high3dcolor='#FFFFFF';
swap3d=1;
subimage='images/icons/arrow_right12x11_0.gif';
onsubimage='images/icons/arrow_right12x11_1.gif';
}
There actually isn't a "3d" vs a "3D". The property names are case sensitive, low3dcolor and high3dcolor (as well as other property names). When you use low3dcolor and high3dcolor, they take the place of your separators, so low3dcolor and high3dcolor supercede various separator properties. For example, after setting low3dcolor and high3dcolor, you could remove separatorcolor altogether and its removal would have absolutely no effect. So, if you have separator properties defined in your style along with low3dcolor and high3dcolor, then the low3dcolor and high3dcolor take precedence. But if you remove low3dcolor and high3dcolor, then the standard separators should re-assert themselves.Martin wrote:Hi maz,
oh my holy s.... are we now case sensitive? i can't find an difference between
"3d" and "3D"? Did i miss something?
A valid point, of course. Although I'm sure you'll also admit that, given the number of possible combinations of properties and different approaches to creating menus, it would be extremely difficult and perhaps even impractical to test every possibility, especially without a huge staff to do so. Given that, plus generally good publishing practices, it should also be incumbent upon the end user to test the latest release of the menu scripts, with his or her specific implementation of the menu, on a staging site or page, before uploading the updated scripts to a functional site... at least in my own humble opinion.Martin wrote:To be honest: You should invest a bit more time to test a new release.
Wait no longer - it's already posted!Martin wrote:I will wait for the next update to get my problem fixed.
Trust me - Andy and his staff do test the changes before they are posted. However, as a programmer (and I write CF as well), you know that not every possible combination and item can be tested, regardless of how good your testing system is. So, sometimes something gets through. OK, I can live with that. Why? Because I understand the unreal complexity of this system and the above-and-beyond dedication Andy has put into this product. Step back and give the man a break. You won't find this dedication any place else that I know of, and we've got a hell of a product for a really cheap price.Martin wrote:To avoid errors like we have now, i would be enough to click trough all samples menues with the new RC or version. All basic and a lot of the advanced features would be verified. I did that a few minutes ago and I used only a few minutes. This would save time and money for everybody.
Coming, as Andy promised. Patience.Martin wrote:A "change log" is must also.
No problem. Glad to help.Martin wrote:...Thanks for your help....
It's already fixed. v5.04.I will wait for the next update to get my problem fixed.
I do the same.As a programmer, i'm used to test my applications after minor and major changes. To do that, I use a test-scenario and sometimes i use an automated testing program.
I respect your opinion, especially since you are a long-time user. But I have to disagree with you on this point. First, not every feature has an example. Second, features often interact, and there would not necessarily be a sample of various important combinations.To avoid errors like we have now, i would be enough to click trough all samples menues with the new RC or version. All basic and a lot of the advanced features would be verified...
(2) Even so, the ultimate responsibility for the quality of a site lies with the person who is publishing that site. Consider an analogy. If an end user of one of our software products notices a problem with the product, and we trace it back to a .dll in a third-party product we incorporate into ours, we will of course notify the producer of that .dll. But the end user will hold us responsible, as they should, not the producer of the .dll. So, while I agree that testing at Milonic is important, I also maintain that it is at least equally important for someone to test a new menu code release before publishing it to his or her site. And as little time as you say it took you to click through all of the samples on the Milonic site, I would imagine that it should take even less time for a person to test a new release with his or her own menu implementation before uploading to his or her site. Personally, I would never upload a new script to my site without testing it first.As a ColdFusion programmer, I have to concentrate my small brain to the main application. The menu system is only a small part of the application.
There has been one since v5.0 was released. You'll find it at http://milonic.com/menuvinfo.php (where the old v3 version info was)A "change log" is must also.
I'm not sure I understand the point here. There haven't been any changes to menu_data code syntax, documented or otherwise, for a long long time... the last ones were what... RC19 or so? And even then, it was pretty minor. But regardless... this particular issue was simply a small bug in the base code, requiring no changes on your end to fix (as you pointed out, the same code worked for many RCs). So I don't get the point about having to get back into the menu syntax etc.???After realizing an error in the menu, i have to get back into the syntax of the menu again and again. All parameters of the menu are stored in a database and/or are generated at runtime. This complicates any changes to the menu and needs some time to get back into this stuff, especially if the menu suffers with backwards compatibilty issues or non documented changes to the syntax.
Apology not necessary (but accepted anyway). It was there - I missed it, too!Martin wrote:We know now the location of a change log(did I missed that before? If yes, I apology my barking).
And that is the bottom line - right?Martin wrote:Cool, version 5.04 fixed the problems.