Am I doing it wrong? Searching for TW technical info

I’m wondering if I’m going about this wrong. I’m trying to learn more about TiddlyWiki in the course of writing a large documentation wiki for a work project. But I keep getting stymied in trying to find what I think should be fairly straightforward technical information. I’m wondering if I’m not looking in the right places, if I’m not searching properly, or if the information is simply not particularly documented. I know I can keep asking questions here, but I really like to do my due diligence first. While I think I’m generally pretty good at finding documented technical info, those skills aren’t helping me here.

Here’s a recent example.

I wanted to do something that involved creating a temporary tiddler. I certainly have seen the namespace $:/temp. I made the guess that anything in that namespace is simply not saved back to the (in my case) Node server. But I wanted to be sure. I didn’t want to hear later that they were saved in some edition I haven’t tested or to some backend I wasn’t using, or that they were saved if the tiddler happened to have a foobar field. Now clearly I could add a new topic here. But I wanted to research it first, and only come with a question if I couldn’t find it. As I said, I think I’m fairly good at finding such published information.

I went to https://tiddlywiki.com/ and searched for "temporary". None of the six matches seemed to offer anything useful, so I searched on "$:/temp". I scanned the 27 hits, but none looked promising. I headed over to https://tiddlywiki.com/dev/ and did the same things with no information. So I came back to the main site and read or skimmed all those 27 matches. Twenty-four of them just mentioned tiddler names in that $:/temp namespace. Two were more interesting, because they mentioned $/temp/volatile, which sounds like an alternative candidate for a prefix of tiddlers not to be saved. But it still didn’t answer the question. The final one, Naming of System Tiddlers offers this:

Namespace Format Description
$:/temp/* lowercase Temporary tiddlers that shouldn’t be saved

Ok, but now what does “shouldn’t be saved” mean? Does this mean that I as a user should avoid saving them? If so how? Does it mean that Tiddlywiki will most likely not save them, but might sometimes do so for capricious reasons? Or does it mean that I should name them like this to tell the system not to save them? That last is what I hope, but it’s still not clear to me that this is what’s meant.

So I searched the web. I can’t remember the search term but the results were mostly links to Tiddlywiki.com, with the others either to this forum or its Google-groups predecessor. Amidst these, I found State tiddlers for open tabs should not persist after refresh, a GitHub issue opened nine years ago, and closed last year, all about state tiddlers, but at least including what I think of as an early mention of $:/temp, with the suggestion that it might serve the role I’m hoping. But that still didn’t tell me what I wanted to know.

I had a vague memory that Grok Tiddlywiki had a mention of this, and I searched there to find

The tiddler we’ve bound the text box to in this case is a system tiddler whose name begins with $:/temp/ , often called a temporary tiddler . Tiddlers in $:/temp/ are not saved with your wiki – when you close the page or hit the refresh button, they are all gone. For a situation like this one, that’s usually what you want, but if you want the value to persist across a reload, you should keep that tiddler somewhere else.

Which seems to tell me what I wanted to know, except that the footnote it links to tells me that this is a “lie to children” – an evocative phrase I hadn’t heard before, but which I take to mean something technically false, but true for most purposes, and useful to most readers – and that, in fact,

Actually, it depends on what saver you are using – some savers won’t discard temporary tiddlers. But you should always assume that they’ll go away, to avoid creating a wiki that only works with some savers.

So I think I’ve found my answer. But the search was much more painful than expected, and the answer is still a little shaky.

My question is whether I’m doing this wrong. Is there some way I should have been able to find this answer more easily? Am I looking at the wrong resources? Am I using them incorrectly? Or do the sorts of resources I want simply not exist?

Answer: No, you’re not doing anything wrong.

I can’t say why things are the way they are, but… anyone/everyone is welcome to submit documentation updates (not a great answer, I know).

Regarding your underlying issue: this might be what you’re asking about:

https://tiddlywiki.com/#%24%3A%2Fconfig%2FSaverFilter

Whether that’s “lying to children” (strange phrase to me) I don’t know.

EDIT: And of source, this: https://tiddlywiki.com/#SavingMechanism

3 Likes

I empathize with your expirence. As a community we depend on contributions from the community to identify and fill the gaps.

  • have a look at other forums here to raise issues
  • please concider using a github account and submit doco updates if possible.
  • raise here as you have done.

No, that’s a fine answer. I’m doing a lot of thinking about how I would go about documenting TW if I were to start from scratch. Perhaps I’ll start that myself (and further fragment the TW knowledge), or perhaps I’ll try to contribute back to an existing source.

image

I’m still at the stage of feeling it out, seeing how I can find the information that does exist. But eventually (probably a long way off) perhaps I’ll feel confident enough to note that it’s not just me and that the information I want is not well documented and I can try to get that information disseminated on my own or by contributing to existing systems.

I first saw this without your edit, and thought, “Well, I get that now, but a few weeks ago that would have meant nothing to me.” Together, the two links tell a lot.

Thank you for your response.

I absolutely will consider adding documentation. And I’m quite comfortable with GitHub. But there is no branch named “docs” or “documentation”. There is no such folder in the main branch. It becomes tricky to figure out where to try to contribute. The README mentions https://groups.google.com/g/tiddlywikidocs, which sounds perfect until we realize that the most recent post is 10 months old and that there are approximately 20 posts total over the three years it was active.

So it’s difficult to figure out even how to contribute.

That won’t stop me entirely, but it does add a lot of friction.

Thank you for the feedback. I’m glad it’s not just me!

== frustration. I get it.

Just be aware, there’s the continual tension between documenting for “regular users” and (in your/my case) those with a “coder’s head”.

't aint easy.

I worry that for any function, TiddlyWiki has two types of users: those who don’t understand it, and those who do (and who may not remember what it’s like to be unaware of how to figure it out).

And often when someone crosses the threshold (usually by learning of some term or phrase that had not been obvious to start with), they are exhausted and just want to solve their problem, and are not yet confident enough to submit documentation suggestions.

It seems the community needs something more like a documentation-relay process. I think I recall some discussion of monitoring what was being searched-for at tiddlywiki.com… so that it would be easier to see how many people expected to find info on, say, “disjunction” (that was me for a long time) or “temporary” (etc.). Top three search terms should become top priority, to forge better paths between naive language and expert language.

-Springer

1 Like

Yes, see also Monad tutorials! (For those without coding experience, please forgive me, but you really, really don’t want to understand that or even look it up! :wink:)

I absolutely find myself in such a position now. I know that any explanations I make, even as I reach a tentative understanding of something, are likely to be ridiculously wrong. But I start to lose the sense of the old questions as I gain better understanding.

I want to try to start documenting some of my learnings now before they become too ingrained. I have always believed that the best documentation come from those learning a system. And the best editing comes from others also learning it. The experts should mostly be responsible for the “well, actually” technical sections.

But I’m hesitant to get started, and don’t really have a mechanism in mind.

There is some documentation about contributing to the documentation here:

https://tiddlywiki.com/#Improving%20TiddlyWiki%20Documentation

We don’t have any way of monitoring the searches performed on tiddlywiki.com, but there is an report available to administrators of talk.tiddlywiki.org that lists search terms in order of popularity.

Here’s the complete report for 2022:

Term ​ Searches ​ CTR
theme 147 4.1%
webdav 135 4.5%
streams 108 11.2%
markdown 104 4.9%
projectify 98 3.1%
calendar 89 5.7%
pdf 87 8.1%
table 74 9.5%
transclusion 68 4.5%
echarts 66 4.6%
shiraz 65 29.3%
timimi 63 12.7%
tiddlydesktop 63 8%
obsidian 62 8.1%
image 59 3.4%
json 59 3.4%
layout 58 15.6%
import 58 5.2%
tabs 57 8.8%
journal 56 3.6%
todo 56 3.6%
search 55 5.5%
css 54 3.8%
tiddlyclip 54 3.8%
redesign 54
mcl 53 30.2%
bookmark 53 7.6%
palette 52 13.5%
stroll 52 11.6%
editor 51 2%
sidebar 50 10%
sync 47 2.2%
plugin 45 6.7%
themes 45 6.7%
landing page 45
macro 44 11.4%
export 44 4.6%
bob 43 18.7%
images 42 9.6%
timeline 42 7.2%
template 41 14.7%
logseq 41 2.5%
gatha 40 22.5%
performance 40 15%
tix 39 28.3%
server 39 5.2%
epub 39 2.6%
video 38 13.2%
blog 38 7.9%
tiddlyhost 38 7.9%
Totals for sample
3.0k 9%

Ah perfect. And an early line makes things much more clear:

If you already know GitHub, note that documentation updates must be directed to the tiddlywiki-com branch

I’ll check this out very soon. Thank you!

1 Like

See also 7 Steps to Improve the TiddlyWiki Documentation, which is a guide to use the tw5 docs pr maker, a newer/easier way to contribute to tiddlywiki especially suited for making doc improvements (no need for using a code editor)

1 Like

5 posts were split to a new topic: How to contribute to the TW documentation using TW PR-Maker

I personally do use the PR-Maker wiki to create pull-requests for smaller changes or typos in 1 tiddler. IMO it’s a relatively fast way to create a PR without the need to create a local feature-branch first.

eg: Improve docs for genesis-widget by pmario · Pull Request #7174 · Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5 · GitHub

Since some month we do have a mechanism in place, that automatically creates a “preview” wiki, that can be used by everyone interested to immediately see the changes which are proposed by a PR, but not merged yet. See the “Visit Preview” link in the image below

2 Likes

4 posts were split to a new topic: The TW Documentation PR Maker and Authentication Tokens