Opened 12 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#21645 closed defect (bug) (invalid)
Documentation for "Rewrite API" and flush_rules
Reported by: | here | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Milestone: | Priority: | normal | |
Severity: | minor | Version: | 3.4.1 |
Component: | Rewrite Rules | Keywords: | |
Focuses: | docs | Cc: |
Description
It is not clear if or how visiting the Settings -> Permalinks calls flush_rules. It is referenced occasionally as an apparent alternative to $wp_rewrite->flush_rules() in Documentation. This should be explicitly confirmed in the admin interface and/or a button based action.
Documentation for the Rewrite API functions do not point at $wp_rewrite->flush_rules() effectively. (Updated some codex links, but seems worth including a pointer inline in function definitions.)
I was confused while editing an existing theme why duplicating existing add_feed() structures in functions.php did not produce duplicated behaviour in the permalinks. ?feed=atom1 worked , but /feed/atom1/ didn't, until calling flush_rules()
Logic seems broken between these functions. Why call Rewrite API add_feed() every init, but still require a flush_rules reset to activate? They should be more explicitly linked / combined / triggered. See prior conversation in #21335
Change History (8)
#4
in reply to:
↑ description
@
10 years ago
- Severity changed from normal to minor
- Summary changed from Rewrite API logic and flush_rules to Documentation for "Rewrite API" and flush_rules
I can look into this again and update the documentation or close the ticket. I don't have an option to assign this ticket to me, but feel free to do so if you do.
#6
@
10 years ago
- Keywords reporter-feedback close added
@here: Would you to follow up on this ticket or shall we close it?
I don't agree with it. Flushing rules isn't something the user should deal with. It is something a developer should handle with care.
The add_feed also handles the call to a function and that is something that can change but flushing rules is a one time action.