Hi,
Here is my reply to each of the issue

1) In each tab page in the back-end, Memberium metaboxes (content protection and custom codes) are displayed as if it were an actual WP page. However, they don’t work. I would like to request that you allow Memberium to control access to BUPTCP’s custom tabs as well. It would be invaluable.

You are right. It is a bug in memberium. They should not show their meta boxes on a private post type. Please let them know the above line and ask them to either disable it for private post types or ask them if they provide a hook to disable it. There is not much we can do it on our part.

2) Buddyboss has the ability to show certain sidebar widgets only on the profile page sidebar. However, when BUPTCP is activated, Memberium’s content protection metabox doesn’t work any more for these standard WP widgets. It obviously works if I deactivate BUPTCP.

As soon as Memberium’s metabox membership levels or tags settings are changed, the widget remains permanently visible or invisible regardless of the metabox settings. At that point, the only way to fix the problem is removing the widget and adding it again without touching any Memberium metabox settings.

I would like to ask that – if possible – you make Memberium fully compatible with BUPTCP. I got in touch with Memberium support and they replied that they would like to integrate with you but cannot make it happen on their own. The details of their reply are following:

I am not sure how memberium protects the metabox, so unable to help unless they point you/us to a hook for the same.
I have worked with memberium in past on a client’s site and working with it(developer customizations) has been a nightmare. The code is obfuscated(which is against the spirit of WordPress & Opensource) and that makes it very difficult for us to understand or assist with it.

If they can point to relevant hooks and how their hiding works, I will be glad to add the compatibility.

Reply from memberium support:

That integration is a premium plugin that was done by BuddyDev, not by us.

My educated guess is that their code doesn’t use the standard filters when loading, and just pulls the pages and widgets in for display.

The access control metabox you’re seeing added automatically to any/all pages that get displayed on the front-end, but it being on the page doesn’t guarantee that the other plugin won’t bypass and load/display it directly.

I would recommend raising this with them.

The good news is that I DO suspect it’s an easy fix on their end, if it’s something they want to support.

If there’s anything we can do to support them we’re happy to, it’s just not a code base we have access to, are familiar with, or have any control over.

Please give them a copy of our plugin(It is GPL licensed and there are no restrictions) and ask them if they can point what is wrong? We will be more than happy to change. We do use ‘the_content’ filter at one point but if this is causing issue, it seem there is something very wrong with their restrictions then.

Since their code is obfuscated and restricted, Please give them a copy of our plugin and let me know their feedback for change.

Thank you
Brajesh

Hi Salvatore,
Welcome to BuddyDev support forums.

We have received your message and I am posting that in my next private reply(using private reply to protect the privacy of message), Please let me know if you want that to be public.

I will be posting my reply after that.

Thank you
Brajehs

Hi Omar,
I am sorry, The code will not work with BuddyBoss. It does not matter at what priority you attach it as they first generate markup for their enabled buttons and then append then buttons hooked at ‘bp_member_header_actions’.

Please get in touch with BuddyBoss support and see if they can help. You might need a different hook.

Regards
Brajesh

Thank you.

Hi Bob,
I am sorry, I did not reply earlier.

Yes, I am still planning to rewrite it. It may not work for existing multi fields based condition as we are moving from the field id to values. Other than that, everything else will work.

I will try to implement an upgrader for the existing multi fields based condition but I am unable to guarantee it it currently.

Thank you
Brajesh