[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       bricolage-general
Subject:    Re: using the related_subs parameter in the story_list.mc template
From:       "David E. Wheeler" <david () kineticode ! com>
Date:       2008-02-12 22:58:54
Message-ID: 618F2C86-B993-4E31-8F59-044EFBC5006D () kineticode ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Feb 12, 2008, at 09:49, Dawn Buie wrote:

> Hi all -
>
> I've been taking advantage of the many wonderful sorting  
> possibilities of the story_list.mc and keyword_list.mc templates in  
> a recent project.
>
> I have a story template that has a 'related_story_box' container  
> which in turn contains a related_story_link subelement. I want to  
> show these manually related links in this box on this story, in  
> addition I want to show up to 5 more stories that share keywords  
> with the story currently being burned.
>
> I assumed if I added 'related_story_link' as a ' related_subs'  
> parameter in the story_list.mc, those stories would be excluded from  
> the results.

That is true if the calling template is for the related_story_box.

> However I'm getting duplicate results on the same story if I  
> manually associate a related story *and* that same story has  
> keywords in common with my existing story.

That will happen if you call story_list.mc from any other element  
template.

> Here's my query:
>
> my @keyword_features = $m->comp(
>    '/util/story_list.mc',
>    max            => 5,
>    story_types    => 'feature',
>    which_keywords => 'story', #the params passed to /util/ 
> keyword_list.mc
>    by_cover_date  => 0,
>    related_subs   => 'related_story_link',
> );

I think that `related_subs` needs to be an array reference:

    related_subs   => ['related_story_link'],

> If I add the 'exclude_ids' parameter and feed it the value for a  
> list of the 'related_story_link' s ids that does the trick too - but  
> I just want to make sure I'm understanding the intention behind the  
> 'related_sub' parameter because it would be so much neater to use  
> it. I also want to make sure this is not a bug.

It is a bug if, once you adjust as above, it still doesn't work.

HTH,

David
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]