Create a commenting module

[DemeSzabolcs]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

O1 has a commenting module , but Orchard Core doesn't.

Describe the solution you'd like

A new module called Comments or Commenting or something like that should be added to Orchard Core. Feature set:

• Commenting, on the chosen content types (on the frontend of course).
• The ability to comment when there is no user registration on the site (by providing email and name).
• Sending the commenter an email if there is a new comment. (This could be done with workflows).

There were discussions about this already, see:
https://github.com/jsalgado10/Commentator.OrchardCore
#2942
StatCan/StatCan.OrchardCore#73

Describe alternatives you've considered

I haven't, I think OC need a commenting module too.

[Piedone]

I don't think subscribing to a comment thread, i.e. sending the commenters e-mails optionally (not talking about the owner of the site) can easily work with Workflows. You'd need a custom activity for that at least.

Also, an alternative for commenting apart from a built-in or custom Comments module would be to use an external system like Disqus. A concern here post-GDRP is privacy: for you as a site owner, every embedded widget is a liability and you have to make sure that the provider complies with GDPR, as well as that you include them appropriately in your privacy policies.

[agriffard]

https://github.com/agriffard/Disqus.OrchardCore

[hishamco]

I planned to add both Disqus and Giscus to Orchard Core Contrib (OCC), but then I remembered @agriffard already implemented Disqus, it would be nice if you add it to OCC and I will implement the other one

Backing to the original thread, we might have a simple commenting system like Orchard, this could be useful for TheBlogTheme

[loid345]

Use discourse
https://meta.discourse.org/t/embed-discourse-comments-on-another-website-via-javascript/31963

[Piedone]

What I'd do here is a very constrained feature set:

• CommentsPart:
  • If attached, will add commenting to a content type. You can also use this to display a comment box widget anywhere too.
  • Similar to ListPart (maybe using ListPart?), is the parent of Comment items, also making it possible to list Comments corresponding to a Comments Part-using item on the admin. Unapproving a comment is unpublishing it, or you can delete it like any item.
• Comment:
  • Name, optional related user for logged in ones, markdown-formatted message (if the latter can be safe; if not, then plain text with line breaks and that's it). The related logged in user can come from CommonPart; if set, that's displayed, if not, Name. One of the must be provided.
  • It's a content type, so content events work (and thus e.g. you can create a workflow to send an e-mail for new comments).
• List comments: by created DESC in one list. No threading and no paging.
• Pluggable antispam feature, with ReCaptcha (from the ReCaptcha module) and a honeypot field.

What do you think?

The Orchard 1 Comments module might be used for some inspiration but this would be green-field.

[MZole]

I will start working on this tomorrow. I'm just commenting to let everyone know, since I can't assign to this issue.

[hishamco]

@MZole it's yours now :)

[MZole]

I was wondering, what's the standard approach for a 'custom' content migration like this Comment?
I saw several approaches for migrations, like recipe migrations, MapIndexTables and adding the fields in a type's part like this:

await _contentDefinitionManager.AlterPartDefinitionAsync(nameof(CommentsPart), builder => builder
    .WithField(nameof(CommentsPart.Name), field => field
        .OfType(nameof(TextField))
        .WithDisplayName("Commenter's Name"))
    .WithField(nameof(CommentsPart.RelatedUser), field => field
        .OfType(nameof(TextField))
        .WithDisplayName("Related User"))
    .WithField(nameof(CommentsPart.Message), field => field
        .OfType(nameof(HtmlField))
        .WithDisplayName("Message"))
    .WithDescription("Provides a way to add comments to content items."));

await _contentDefinitionManager.AlterTypeDefinitionAsync("Comment", type => type
    .WithPart(nameof(CommentsPart), part =>
        part.WithPosition("0")));

Is this example a great approach in this use-case?

[Piedone]

Better use WithField<T> but otherwise as a migrations good.

However, the name and related user shouldn't be stored in text fields, rather as custom properties on the part. Having a corresponding index table would be useful too.

And we definitely don't want to allow people to write HTML in the message. As mentioned, rather have a Markdown-formatted message if it can be safe; if not, then plain text with line breaks.

[sebastienros]

This should be a community (external) module. There are too many issues with commenting:

• It's a front-end module, heavy on design/customization work
• Threads / No Thread
• Content ownership
• SPAM
• Markdown/...
• Perf
• Notification

It's a huge piece of work and that might be too much load to handle in this repository (bugs, feature requests, disagreements, ...)

[Piedone]

It's certainly easier as a community module (since then you all don't have a say in it :D) but I think having some kind of core commenting module is a base CMS feature. If you have a blog now, which comes with a built-in recipe, you need to either develop this yourself, or have to use an external service, including its privacy and monetary (you either pay or your users see ads) implications.

[hishamco]

If you have a blog now, which comes with a built-in recipe, you need to either develop this yourself,

Exactly, I'm with Zoltan we should have a minimalistic comment module, but we could do one with more features as a community project in Orchard Core Contrib or Lombiq or anyone interested

[hishamco]

@MZole any updates on this?

[sebastienros]

I would personally (meaning it engages only myself, others can disagree and ignore my view) be opposed to such feature in the main repository for the reasons I exposed. I am totally supportive of any external effort to have it as a different org/repository so it's clear that nobody should expect support from contributors outside if its own repository.

[hishamco]

What if we provide a simple flat comment system at least for TheBlogTheme, I'm with you Seb that this module has many requested features and could be managed completely outside this repo

[sebastienros]

I would suggest providing integration with commenting solutions like giscus (for a technical blog) or disqus (more general blog) as a basic offering. The maintenance would then be limited to ensuring that the integration just works, no complexity for theming, auth, perf, ...

[hishamco]

I planned to add Giscus to Orchard Core Contrib (OCC) but if this is accepted in OC I will move my effort here instead

[hishamco]

Or we could you use Disqus here for simplicity

[MZole]

I did progress with this a lot, but ultimately we can understand if you don't want this type of solution for the reasons you mentioned.

If you already had planned your integration, please take it from here @hishamco, I'm unassigning.

[Piedone]

WIP code is here if anybody wants to pick this up: https://github.com/Lombiq/OrchardCore/tree/issue/OCORE-133

[hishamco]

If there's no willing to add it, I might start with simple Giscus or Discus then I might reviisit the link that you refer too