-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 126
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Shortcut handling seems to be missing from version 2 #320
Comments
realurl v2 is not 100% compatible with v1. You can try making a PR but you have to make sure it works across domains, with all kind of page types, mount points, etc. |
Thank you for the feedback. Would you kindly add this difference to the wiki? It might save people from running into that issue. We'll take the old |
I'm closing this for now, as I'm not sure if I'll be getting the resources to code a general fix. |
Since a shortcut should not be encoded, but its destination, we want to resolve the id of the request to that of the shortcut. dmitryd#320
Version 1 of the extension allowed to control shortcut handling via the
dontResolveShortcuts
config option. It involved the functionsresolveShortcut
andresolveShortcuts
inclass.tx_realurl_advanced
, making it possible to substitute the URL of a shortcut page with the URL of the shortcut's target page. It appears that this is no longer possible.To give an example:
Realurl version 1 would generate a link to Important Page in the footer menu, with realurl version 2.1.4 the link points to the shortcut page instead (which then does a redirect to Important Page, causing an extra round-trip and with some configs even a redirect loop with itself).
That's a pitty, as that feature is very useful for SEO. This is also not mentioned in the documentation, neither the "differences between v1 and v2" nor the "upgrading to v2" wiki pages make any mention of this. This is a breaking change causing unexpected behavior and I'd hence qualify it as a bug.
Are there workarounds for this? If not, would a pull-request which re-implements this be welcome?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: