bbPress | git branch for sharing in-progress patch ideas | Microservice library

You should be able to solve this using JS. Just insert this JS and then put what every you want in the function.

You need to hook action on user_register to add second role automatically:

you can give the style display:flex; to the author and avatars parent element.If **div.hentry ** is your parent div for avatar and author with this code they should be side by side.

You have taken the right steps; You need to complete it with function.php in your child template to force the posts_per_page.

Put this in your function.php

In a filter hook, you normally have to override the current value by returning it. Therefore try returning the new value by using the function you already created. It may remove the duplicate.

Also, use site_url() instead of $url variable because there will be issues when you use a hardcoded URL.

The problem is in the $post variable you need replace to $loop and you should check the paged parameter

If the pagination is broken on a static front page you have to add the "paged" parameter this way:

I'm assuming bbpress means wordpress as you tagged it for wordpress:

These obstacles are intellectual; matters of understanding, not matters of implementation.

1. Noting the Relational Database tag.
   Yes, a Relational database will give you:

   • (a) the structure you are seeking, in straight-forward logic, as well as:

   • (b) the easiest code and the fastest queries
     (that which you have requested, plus any that you dream up in the future).
     .

   But you have to use Relational concepts (the Relational Model by Dr E F Codd).

   If you use the concepts marketed by Date; Darwen; et al, which is marketed as "relational", both the structure [a], and the code for navigation and queries [b] will be horrendous. Additionally, you will not have Relational Integrity; or Relational Power; or Relational Speed that is possible in database that complies with Codd's Relational Model.

2. The Relational Model is Hierarchic.
   Three types of Data Hierarchies are formally (by prior intent and design) in the Relational Model.

   1. Your requirement is the simplest, four tables in a simple data hierarchy, which is reflected in the Relational Key (more, later).

   2. The second type is a Tree (Single-Parent). You have that in Post, thus it needs no further explanation..

   3. The third type is a Tree for Ancestors and a Tree for Descendants, without duplicating any data. Usually called a Bill of Materials structure. We don't have to worry about that here, it is beyond the scope of the question.

   Warning. The links given in the comments will take you down a complex garden path, that might possibly be relevant for the other two types of hierarchies, and in any case, very poor implementations thereof.

   • Eg. SQL has recursion; MySQL does not have recursion, so a hard-coded and limited method is given).

   • Eg. some of the methods implement the trees in concrete: if a branch is moved, the entire tree needs to be re-written.

   The point is, you don't need it. (You might need it for Post, but not for the answer to your question.)

3. You have an excellent grasp of your data, which is required for the exercise. But you have fixed ways of thinking about that data, no doubt due to the other implementation methods that you have tried, and the requirements therein. So the demand here is to give those methods of perceiving the data up, and to follow the Relational requirement:

   • perceive the data, as data, and nothing but data
     No additional columns or structures

   To differentiate
   Date; Darwen; et al, take the Result Set (the output of a query on Relational tables) as the starting point, as the perspective to be used when analysing and modelling the data. Which is reversing the order of nature, and guaranteed to cripple the modelling exercise (the report you want for a particular purpose vs the data as data).

   Then, as if stuck in an Excel spreadsheet mindset, they add on a Record ID field to the Result Set. Such an act cripples the modelling exercise further, because one now the false notion that a physical Record ID identifies the logical row. It does not.

If you can give that fixed perspective up, along with the additions that contaminate the problem, and cross over the line into the Relational paradigm:

• You will not need the relations table: it is totally redundant, because the Relational database supplies all relationships (that you have defined thus far).

• You won't need the IDs, which are always one additional field and one additional index on every file. And the horrendous consequential problems.

Additionally, you will obtain:

• Relational Integrity (which is logical, as distinct from Referential Integrity, which is the physical feature in SQL);
• Relational Power (your navigation and query code will be dead simple, JOINs of distal tables will not require intermediate tables to be JOINed, etc); and
• Relational Speed (fewest indices).

If interested, some of my recent Answers contain details and examples of those benefits.

• All my data models are rendered in IDEF1X, the Standard for modelling Relational databases since 1993.

• My IDEF1X Introduction is essential reading for those who are new to the Relational Model or Relational data modelling.

• Rather than the example data you have given at the top of your question (which is not really example data, but a simple definition of the Form that you would like the display of the data to take), examine the example data (which are, of course, Identifying Keys) that I have given (blue).

  • The numbers are redundant. if actually necessary, they can be computed on the fly
  • Do not use numbers as Keys, because, when the structure changes, you will have to renumber all your Keys. Totally unnecessary.

• The Relational Model demands that the Keys are "made up from the data". The numbers are not.

• The data hierarchy is both:

  • visual in the data model

  • and reflected in the Relational Keys.

• Relational Keys

  • are composites, get used to it. SQL has been handling composite Keys since 1984.
  • define and implement the data hierarchy. No surprise, because the Relational Model is hierarchic.
  • Course, Lesson, Topic, Quiz are Key elements, short names, not necessarily codes (they would be codes in a large university), that are unique in the given context.

  • The Title would be the long name that shows up on screens for external users (prospects).

  • A Lesson does not exist independently, it exists only in the context of a Course. Therefore the Key for Lesson is ( Course, Lesson ). An ID does not uniquely identify a Lesson (or anything else, for that matter). You might have more than one Lesson across the Courses.

  • A Topic does not exist independently, it exists only in the context of a Course and a Lesson. Therefore the Key for Topic is ( Course, Lesson, Topic ). Etc.

  • A Quiz does not exist independently, it exists only in the context of a Course, a Lesson, and a Topic. Therefore the Key for Quiz is ( Course, Lesson, Topic, Quiz ). Etc.

• Relational Integrity

  • Eg. A Quiz is constrained to a particular Topic, which is Identified by (Course, Lesson, Topic).

  • Whereas a Record ID based filing system (falsely marketed as "relational") cannot provide that, it can only constrain a Quiz to any Topic.

  • Of course, that applies to all the tables in the data hierarchy.

• The relationship between Posts and the structure that is the answer to the question, is not at all clear, therefore it would be incorrect to model it. Nevertheless, it is important to you, so I have modelled it on a possibility basis, with reticence. If you define with more clarity, I will update the data model.

Dead simple, compared to that which you have in the fiddle, or that which is demanded by a Record ID based filing system.

Get me all lessons for a course