0

I'm in the process of taking things out of our codebase and into content where they belong, things like navigation and listings of categories. I really enjoy the features offered up by the Low Reorder add-on. I use Draggable to manage the order of categories within a category group, but I would only need a subset of these categories.

E.g. given a category group of:

  • Alpha
  • Beta
  • Carrot
  • Doc
  • Elephant
  • Mouse

I may just want 3 of those in a custom order in one place, 4 of them in a different order in another, but all I'd need are the category names, url_titles, and in the desired sequence. Don't need entries. Just the categories.

I might just go ahead and make a channel just for entries with 1:1 relation to categories (maybe along with a WB Category Select field as the relation) and then use Low Reorder to create subsets as desired. But I really want to avoid having to essentially enter content twice and any overhead of channel:entries when all I really need is a list of category names and url_titles. I suppose a bonus would be getting to using the entry title over the category name as an option or something.

I could add custom fields to the category group(s), but then you wouldn't be looking at the set in front of you.

Before I set off to do this I figured I might as well ask the community if there is anything like Low Reorder just for categories? Or if there's an existing module, add-on, or method to do this that slip passed me?

Thanks.

1

I wound up using Taxonomy v3.

I was thinking of going the "easy" route of just using existing channels and using Low Reorder in a somewhat ad-hoc basis... but a few things occurred to me which I was neglecting:

  • {exp:channel:entries} is expensive. Better to avoid it.
  • Every time I add a new entry it would still be added to a set which is made worse if there are multiple sets to a channel.

All I really needed was a way to make simple, customizable lists that preferably tied directly to categories and/or entries. Tying things to categories doesn't seem to exist, so perhaps a way to match url_titles and mentioning the category group id somewhere.

Going through devot-ee I narrowed my options down to NavEE and Taxonomy. NavEE is really simple and looks like it'd help get the job done, but for $10 more Taxonomy offers further customization via custom fields. I kind of dislike having to refer to trees via their id as opposed to some kind of text reference as it's just easier code-wise between development and other versions of a site... but it's got enough features for my needs.

To simulate a list of categories I make a new tree and add custom links where the link is the category's url_title. If needed I can add a custom field to mention which group the category is in. The "tricky" part is that using the {exp:taxonomy:nav display_root="no"} tag results in outputting To avoid an unordered list e.g. <ul>...loop thru nodes...</ul> use style="linear" (haven't tried this yet, hat tip to @iain urquhart).

To work around it hypothetically you could use stash's list methods. I didn't spend a whole lot of time on it but I couldn't get {exp:stash:set_list} to work if it was wrapping it, but perhaps append_list inside of it would work. What I ended up using was either surgeree's strip_tags method or stash get's strip_tags parameter.

To get actual category data I use Cat2, I have my own fork that I can get custom field stuff. ...should have probably added a way to get the images, too...

In the end the one caveat that comes to mind is that if you change an url_title of a category, you'd have to change this everywhere you have used it manually. May want to refer to the category's id instead of url_title if that is an issue.

Now if I could just learn to cache instances of taxonomy and its results... and just cache in general... but that's another topic.

2
  • 1
    Hey, you can use style="linear" in taxonomy:nav to prevent the list HTML/wrappers being output, that allows you to use whatever HTML you want. May 14 '14 at 8:11
  • @IainUrquhart Don't have time to try this just yet but added it to the answer anyway. Thank you!
    – notacouch
    May 14 '14 at 16:24

This site is temporarily in read only mode and not accepting new answers.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .