Recode update: epic stuff!

I am not sure how this will affect me. I have done minimal coding, but I have a small knowledge of simple tasks based off of the Wiki. I did not understand most of the coding terms used in the update, though. I do not use BBCodes often, but I could imagine this being very useful for those that do. So far I'm loving the re-code. Great job, Niet!

Ok, so... when the recode comes, will we have to change all of those kinds of codes manually, or will it be automatically converted? The reason I ask is because in the joint trade shop I run alongside Neonray3 I has a bunch of tables using inventory codes so I don't have to manually update what I have in stock all the time, and going through to change all of those will be a bit of a hassle. I'd just like to know ahead of time what I'm in for.

Unfortunately you will have to update the code yourself, but it shouldn't be too difficult: Firstly, the post will show an error at the top saying that there is an error in the code, and asking that if it is your post, please fix it. Then, when you open the editor on the post, you can immediately try to save. This will give you the error again, but it will have the helpful extra feature of automatically selecting the line that the error is on. You can then fix it, and try saving again to get the next error. Repeat until all errors are fixed. For the most part, the BBCode system will continue to work as it did, but it will be a little less flexible on what it considers valid. The example shown in the screenshot is a situation of "good practice" that should have been followed from the start, but this version of PFQ allowed the flexibility of not being quite right.

ok stupid question: I have a custom template,will the recode break it?

@SuzakyRyan: Yes and No. The template itself won't break, as the css is built with this logic in mind, but if you use things like [item=ITEM] or [inventory=ITEM], than those codes will break because the new coding requires variables to be contained in quotation marks. So for example: right now, it would be [item=Fire Gem], but when the recode finally takes effect, it would have to be [item="Fire Gem"] , with "Fire Gem" being the variable. Nope, I'm wrong. Sorry 'bout that.

Not quote, Ganorith. It's specifically *nested* BBCodes (codes that have other codes inside their parameter) that has the issue. So [item=Fire Gem] is fine, but [progress=[inventory=Fire Gem]/5] is not.

Oh, sorry for the misconception. I though it applied to all variable codes. Well, now I know.

when will the update been done and ready to be used and also what post are you talking about in this message: Firstly, the post will show an error at the top saying that there is an error in the code, and asking that if it is your post, please fix it. Then, when you open the editor on the post, you can immediately try to save. This will give you the error again, but it will have the helpful extra feature of automatically selecting the line that the error is on. You can then fix it, and try saving again to get the next error. Repeat until all errors are fixed. For the most part, the BBCode system will continue to work as it did, but it will be a little less flexible on what it considers valid. The example shown in the screenshot is a situation of "good practice" that should have been followed from the start, but this version of PFQ allowed the flexibility of not being quite right. Also how do i find it, for it's a bit confusing to me.

Did you read the first post of the thread with the update? It shows the new code editor that will be in the recode. The post in question is just any post you make, or even something like your about me. Basically any place that supports BBCode (so not trainer cards or the notepad). You can't find it because it's in the recode/on the dev site, not implemented on the main site, and the dev site cannot be accessed by non-staff. ;3

I asked this yesterday on the 'Dev site pre-alpha preview preparations' thread: Also, even if you don't archive that thread, could you at least update it? Like, remove the link and say 'Oh hey, staff-only now. Woops!'. Even if you don't explain, I think you should remove the link so that people don't try and get into the site. Who knows, the 1/1,000,000 chance that they get in might happen >.>