[Ernest Marcinko]

You cannot access this content.

[Ernest Marcinko]

You cannot access this content.

[Ernest Marcinko]

You cannot access this content.

[Ernest Marcinko]

Hi,

The results page can be tricky, it often times gets the URLs on it’s own from the stored permalinks, and in case of PDFs it’s usually the attachment page and not the direct file.

Since you are using Avada with fusion builder, there is a nice trick to make it still work. I have used the log-in and SFTP details and did the following:

1. On the editor, I have changed the result element link to an “Action” named asp_change_res_page_url: https://i.imgur.com/jtVwSpz.png
2. Then to the child theme functions.php I have added this code to generate the PDF urls using that action:

add_action('asp_change_res_page_url', function($url) {
	global $post;
	if ( isset($post->post_type) && $post->post_type === "attachment" ) {
		echo $post->guid;
	} else {
		echo $url;
	}
}, 10, 1);

Now, the code will trigger and for attachments it will return the file pointer, and for other result types the original URL.

[Ernest Marcinko]

Hi,

Thanks for the details!

I have tested the layout, but I get the correct output on all types of mobile devices: https://i.imgur.com/owdui9o.png

If it does not happen all the time, then it means you may have some sort of an issue with your cache. Since you are using multiple search bars for different device types, then make sure to have a different cache for each device.
I believe all cache plugins have an option for that, usually is called “Cache Mobile” or “Separate cache for mobile” or something similar.

[Ernest Marcinko]

Great, then I make sure to merge this with the upcoming release!

I think it’s possible, can you try changing the checkbox logic here: https://i.imgur.com/zBSGpwn.png

If that does not work, then make sure to exclude the categories you don’t want the results from here: https://i.imgur.com/YopfWev.png

[Ernest Marcinko]

You cannot access this content.

[Ernest Marcinko]

Okay, that still might be the pool size.

I will do a debugging session locally a bit later today to try to patch this. I will get back to you tomorrow as soon as I find the issue with the pool sizes and why it needs so much memory, there must a be a bug there.

Either way, if I find the issue then I will send you a patched version or instructions on how to get around it by tomorrow.

[Ernest Marcinko]

Hi,

Sure!

I recommend starting off with this video tutorial. It has basically exactly what you want, the only difference is that it is demonstrated with Products, but that does not matter in this case.

Let me know if you have any specific questions after trying via the tutorial.

[Ernest Marcinko]

You cannot access this content.

[Ernest Marcinko]

You cannot access this content.

[Ernest Marcinko]

Hi,

Well, that can’t be adjusted on the back-end, but it can be programmatically via a custom code snippet:

add_action('wp_footer', 'wp_footer_datepicker_range_fix', 9999);
function wp_footer_datepicker_range_fix() {
	?>
	<script>
	(function($){
		setTimeout(function(){
			$('.asp_w .hasDatepicker').datepicker('option', 'yearRange', '-9:+1')
		}, 500);
	})(jQuery);
	</script>
	<?php
}

This snippet above will adjust the year range from -9 to +1 years, meaning 2016 to 2026. You can change that on the 6th line as you need it.

[Ernest Marcinko]

It is the default behavior, it can be adjusted that here: https://i.imgur.com/TiLO49a.png

[Ernest Marcinko]

Looks good to me. This should be good for a long time, I don’t see any immediate problems with it. WHile using globals is not the best, but in this case I don’t think you can get by it any other way. This should be all right.

[Ernest Marcinko]

Sure!

Thank you, it helped a lot.

Turns out there was something messed up with the index table pool size so I manually increased it to 999999 here: https://i.imgur.com/wVgdkYu.png

In case you experience anything similar on the live setting, just chang that option, then you don’t have to re-index, it will take effect immediately.

Either way, I will file a bug report on this, I’m not sure what is causing the miscalculation on the pool sizes.

[Author]

Posts