Adding network support #582
Conversation
wp-parsely.php
Outdated
| require __DIR__ . '/src/UI/class-settings-page-network.php'; | ||
| require __DIR__ . '/src/UI/class-parsely-sites-table.php'; | ||
| add_action( | ||
| '_network_admin_menu', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a good reason to hook into _network_admin_menu instead of network_admin_menu?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would collide with the action in class-settings-page-network.php. I've added a change that gets rid of it and plays with priorities, but I'm not sure about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah. I see. _network_admin_menu works for me, then!
src/UI/class-parsely-sites-table.php
Outdated
| */ | ||
| private function fetch_table_data(): array { | ||
| $parsely_network_sites = array(); | ||
| foreach ( get_sites() as $site ) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think get_sites will cap at 100 results per:
https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/blob/5.8.1/src/wp-includes/class-wp-site-query.php#L176
So, we should probably either paginate or add an indication somewhere that only the first 100 results will be shown. I think the latter is fine. If someone is running that many subsites, they're likely going to be reaching for a scripting approach to management.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see number is a parameter, so we could hypothetically bump that number up. I would expect a performance drop if that number is very big, though.
I like your messaging proposal. We can implement pagination later if we see a lot of demand for it.
|
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!
|
|
Closing in favor of #583 |
Description
Closes #575
Motivation and Context
How Has This Been Tested?
Screenshots (if appropriate)