Jump to content
  • Checkout
  • Login
  • Get in touch

osCommerce

The e-commerce.

UKJay

Archived
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by UKJay

  1. Update

     

    The above works fine for those who are not using the 'Larger Packages Percentage Increase' option in Admin / Configuration but I appreciate that many of you will want to use this so in checkout_shipping.php, instead of adding the line above, add:

     

    if (SHIPPING_BOX_WEIGHT >= $total_weight*SHIPPING_BOX_PADDING/100) {
    	  $total_package_weight = $total_weight+SHIPPING_BOX_WEIGHT;
    	} else {
    	  $total_package_weight = $total_weight + ($total_weight*SHIPPING_BOX_PADDING/100);
    	}

     

     

    Another small issue

     

    I noticed that when a load is split into 2 or more packages because of the weight, the modules were outputting the correct rates but were not declaring the correct weights - they were only showing the remainder weight after the other full packages were calculated. Hard to explain but what I mean is

     

    If you have set your largest package to 20kgs and your order is 30kgs, the correct shipping rate is shown but the text will delcare the weight of the package as 10kg (30kg - 20kg). This might not be an issue for many of you but if you want it fixed and have already coded the above changes then:

     

    In your installed modules from this contribution, find:

     

    global $order, $shipping_weight, $shipping_num_boxes;

     

    and replace it with:

     

    global $order, $shipping_weight, $shipping_num_boxes, $total_package_weight;

     

    Find:

     

    // Text shown on Checkout_shipping -  Delivery Weight : 0.7 Kg's (Ships normally within 1 to 3 days)
    		$shipping_method = MODULE_SHIPPING_RMSTANDARDPARCEL_TEXT_WAY . ' : ' . $shipping_weight . ' ' .

     

    and replace the

    $shipping_weight

    with

    $total_package_weight

    (note the MODULE-SHIPPING_ will change depending on the module you are amending)

     

    I'll see if I can trim this down any and add it as an updated contribution later when I get some time to play around with it a bit more.

  2. Ok, written a solution for this. Its been tested in both my live server and my development server and works in both.

     

    In checkout_shipping.php find:

     

    $total_count = $cart->count_contents();

     

    and immediately after it paste:

     

    $total_package_weight = $total_weight+SHIPPING_BOX_WEIGHT;

     

    In each of your shipping modules for this contribution (eg rmfirst.php), find:

     

    global $order, $total_weight;

     

    and change to:

     

    global $order, $total_weight, $total_package_weight;

     

    and then find:

     

    if ($total_weight >

     

    and replace with:

     

    if ($total_package_weight >

     

    The issue is that $total_weight is solely the weight of the goods themselves and does not include the tare weight of any packaging.

     

    $shipping_weight DOES contain both the total weight of the goods as well as the tare but is defined after the shipping modules are called.

     

    By creating a new variable $total_package_weight and defining its value at the same time as $total_weight is defined, it passes the correct total weight of the parcel and packaging to the comparator for the maximum weight allowed for each mail and courier service.

  3. hhmmm,

    not sure what's going on Jay. IMO you shouldn't need to reduce the weight to 0.9kg in the file rmsecond to take account of the tare weight of 0.1kg - there must be something else a miss.

     

    what do you have for the configuration settings for shipping?

    what other postage options do you have installed?

    what prices do you have for rmsecond?

     

    In shipping, the modules I have all the Royal Mail ones in this contribution as well as Citylink. No others as we only deal in the UK market. I have not modified any of the files (apart from reducing the overall limit by 0.1kg as that is my Tare Weight). I have no other shipping modules active or installed. In configuration / shipping, Tare Weight is set to '0.1' and increase for larger parcels set to '0' as it is not required.

     

    As an example of prices, my rmsecond text string is '0:0,.1:.92,.25:1.20,.5:1.52,.75:1.92,1:2.30' - as these are only the prices, they are not an issue and should not effect the weight comparison calculation.

     

    As I mentioned earlier, when I echo out the values of both $shipping_weight and $total_weight, $total_weight = the weight of the goods themselves (as the variable name suggests) and $shipping_weight is the weight of the goods PLUS the Tare weight (again, as the variable name suggests).

     

    I'm wondering if, because many of my items are weighed in exact kilograms, this has not been apparerent in many other installations.

     

    Its not a big issue for me to have hard coded the tare into the maximums in each module php file. I've not made any other changes and by echoing out the above values I know that if I can use $shipping_weight as my comparison variable for the maximum allowed weight, it will work.

     

    Cheers for the replies ;)

  4. Hi Jay,

    I spent most of yersterday testing this module. I really like it but it does need tweaking / testing to see if it's working for what you want.

     

    Personally, I enter correct weights for each product and I use tare weight (45g) to cover the packaging as that is extra weight which needs to be accounted for when calculating shipping. What I noticed was that the max shipping weight (in configuration) affects how this module works. It might be worth checking what yours is set too?? I reckon the tare weight should be usable. Have you enabled first class to cover items that weigh over 1kg? Seems like the £0.00 shows when there is not an option to use for overweight items? I had £0.00 showing before I installed RM std parcles.

     

    I altered max weight for second class as I'm happy to send two packets second class to save money for the customer as I have a few low value items that are weighty - but needed to alter max weight in the file.

     

    Check:

    the max weight in config

    that you have other mailing options installed

    that the display order numbers are all different as duplications here affect whats displayed.

     

    Tiger

    Thanks for the reply Tiger - I understand what you are saying but its down to the wrong variable being used to check for valid postal options in my opinion. I could alter the max weights but then I'd also need to alter the strings to allow for the postage to be increased everytime the weight increased by 1kg and this would make this particular method of postage uneconomical.

     

    I simply need to have it so that the shipping weight is used as the comparison variable and not the weight of the order solely.

     

    Cheers

  5. To clarify the problem when using a TARE weight:

     

    Like others here I have recently experienced a problem with certain shipping options being displayed as £0.00 when I have an entry in Tare Weight in my shipping options.

     

    An example - I had a cart with a 1kg item and have a standard Tare weight of 0.1(kg) set in my shipping options in the Configuration settings.

     

    When this item came through to shipping, it correctly identified the weight on the screen as 1.1kg and displayed the error for Second Class Mail as exceeding the 1kg limit however it still displayed this option with a £0.00 rate as opposed to not displaying it.

     

    The work around I currently have is to hack each shipping module php file and reduce the maximum weights by 0.1 however I cannot see why this is not picking up before this area.

     

    EG, in 'rmsecond.php' on approx line 24 I am changing

     

    if ($total_weight > 1.0)

     

    to

     

    if ($total_weight > 0.90)

     

    I notice that this uses $total_weight for this parameter yet later on the weight is declared as $shipping_weight so these are obviously equal (ie $shipping_weight would appear to include the Tare weight and $total_weight would not)

     

    I'm not proficient as following OOP so cannot spot any quick fix other than my hard coding the figures so can anyone help me please?

     

    Regards

    Ok, a quick play shows that $total_weight is the weight of the order without the tare weight. $shipping_weight is with tare weight so somehow the check needs to compare $shipping_weight to the maximum allowed weights.

  6. To clarify the problem when using a TARE weight:

     

    Like others here I have recently experienced a problem with certain shipping options being displayed as £0.00 when I have an entry in Tare Weight in my shipping options.

     

    An example - I had a cart with a 1kg item and have a standard Tare weight of 0.1(kg) set in my shipping options in the Configuration settings.

     

    When this item came through to shipping, it correctly identified the weight on the screen as 1.1kg and displayed the error for Second Class Mail as exceeding the 1kg limit however it still displayed this option with a £0.00 rate as opposed to not displaying it.

     

    The work around I currently have is to hack each shipping module php file and reduce the maximum weights by 0.1 however I cannot see why this is not picking up before this area.

     

    EG, in 'rmsecond.php' on approx line 24 I am changing

     

    if ($total_weight > 1.0)

     

    to

     

    if ($total_weight > 0.90)

     

    I notice that this uses $total_weight for this parameter yet later on the weight is declared as $shipping_weight so these are obviously equal (ie $shipping_weight would appear to include the Tare weight and $total_weight would not)

     

    I'm not proficient as following OOP so cannot spot any quick fix other than my hard coding the figures so can anyone help me please?

     

    Regards

  7. The message do not appear, but i dont know if this is a symptom cure, or if a real cure, i have to try with the downloadable content, and check if this is working...

     

    Anyone have tryed before ?

    Who cares? - I get paid correctly and no annoying emails. Thats all I wanted!

  8. Hello...

     

    I still have the problem of PayPal IPN Invalid Process

     

    And i dont know how i can resolve them...

     

    I have made the modify segnaled some time ago, because is hosted by godaddy.com, but none has happened...

     

    Every transaction i have made, i will receive two mesage, like this:

     

    payment_date=12:00:10 Jun 22, 2007 PDT

    txn_type=web_accept

    last_name=xxxxxx

    residence_country=IT

    item_name=SissiDoll

    payment_gross=

    mc_currency=EUR

    business=xxxxx@xxxxx

    payment_type=instant

    verify_sign=AFDM8TKQrcy1KlommX0lP.QJNzLjArtWPjRKuJE9R8WSsftWt4wrAnMC

    payer_status=verified

    tax=0.00

    payer_email=xxxxx@xxxxx

    txn_id=6K690808WT093643U

    quantity=1

    receiver_email=xxxxx@xxxxx

    first_name=xxxxx

    invoice=8

    payer_id=YD9MFNZ7K6JY8

    receiver_id=YEFYJGL59U7VL

    item_number=

    payment_status=Completed

    payment_fee=

    mc_fee=0.37

    shipping=0.00

    mc_gross=0.50

    custom=3

    charset=windows-1252

    notify_version=2.1

     

    The money, is regularry arrived, all'is ok, except this...

     

    Please, help me...

    Ok, I had this until I changed the 'Set PayPal Acknowledged Order Status' and 'Set PayPal Completed Order Status' in the admin section (admin/modules/payment/paypal IPN) away from DEFAULT and gave them appropriate values from the drop down boxes (for me I chose PENDING and PREPARING [PAYPAL IPN]) respectively.

     

    Not sure if this is a concidence but since I changed them yesterday, all test payments and 2 live payments have gone through clean with no INVALID emails.

  9. Like a lot of others I am having issues with receiving the "PayPal IPN Invalid Process" email - the account is getting credited so I'm not too bothered by it. However, there are a couple of other issues I am having and I'd like some help if anyone can offer some:

     

    1. When I use the sandbox account, EVERYTHING runs as it should but when I use the LIVE system and run a small transaction to test, the money is credited fine however the orders_purchased field is not updated for the purchased items. This field is updated when I run the test on sandbox. Any ideas?

     

    2. The clients postal address is not being received by my paypal merchant account so that when I click on 'details' for the transaction, I can see the invoice ID but no postal address. This is not a HUGE problem however I would like to be able to print my postal stickers from Paypal.

     

    Thanks in advance!

    Update on this - about an hour after my test purchase an email returned to confirm the order so there appears to be a delay in Paypal confirming the order as valid!

  10. Like a lot of others I am having issues with receiving the "PayPal IPN Invalid Process" email - the account is getting credited so I'm not too bothered by it. However, there are a couple of other issues I am having and I'd like some help if anyone can offer some:

     

    1. When I use the sandbox account, EVERYTHING runs as it should but when I use the LIVE system and run a small transaction to test, the money is credited fine however the orders_purchased field is not updated for the purchased items. This field is updated when I run the test on sandbox. Any ideas?

     

    2. The clients postal address is not being received by my paypal merchant account so that when I click on 'details' for the transaction, I can see the invoice ID but no postal address. This is not a HUGE problem however I would like to be able to print my postal stickers from Paypal.

     

    Thanks in advance!

  11. File Type doesn't mean anything. Because you can have a fully converted url and the SEO simply appends the extension. You probably talking about the converted link where Jack was talking for just the type.

     

    Eg:

    www.mysite321/index.php?cPath=5&products_id=8 => www.mysite321/the_matrix.php

    www.mysite321/index.php?cPath=5&products_id=8 => www.mysite321/the_matrix.htm

     

    There is no difference for the 2 converted links. And php extension doesn't say anything. It doesn't even imply the server is running php. It can be .jsp and have some seo module setting up extensions of the generated links with .php.

    Yeah, fair comment - just re read it and I see what you mean. Got to forgive me, its a hot day and my brain is a little over heated.

  12. The file type makes no difference whatsoever. What matters is how deep the search engines have to go to find your pages. If you start off with your site in a sub-directory, you have one count against you right up front. So it is better to move the shop to the root.

     

    Jack

    I got to disagree Jack with regards to file type - there may be little difference in URLs ending solely in .php but once you start passing variables via URLs then you will suffer in SEO terms. I ran an experiement with two very similar sites last year, both launched on the same date, with similar amount of data (approx 12,000 database driven pages), both SEO'd in exactly the same way with the exception that one site passed variables via the URL and the other had the URL's rewritten via .htaccess to more 'friendly' URL's ending in .htm.

     

    Result, the friendly URL site was fully indexed in Google within 6 weeks - thats all 12,000 pages included. The site with dynamic URLs has approximately 1000 indexed after the same period and even after a further 7 months is not fully indexed.

     

    I agree about the sub directories, although some of that can be countered by using the .htaccess files to rewrite and redirect traffic to apparently higher directories.

  13. Hi @ll!

     

    I'm writing rewrite rules and now I ask me wich kind is better. This one:

     

    http://www.xxxxxxxx.de/backwaren/teige/hefenteig/index.php

     

    or this one:

     

    http://www.xxxxxxxx.de/backwaren_teige_hefenteig/index.php

     

    Cause I read that searchengines like google rate websites on the base of the deep of path too, so the secondary link is better. Or what do you mean?

    Better still would be

     

    http://www.xxxxxxxx.de/backwaren-teige-hefenteig/index.htm

     

    as google prefers .htm endings to dynamic endings like .php

×
×
  • Create New...