Help about soft-reject: Unique prefix for all function names | Page comments are not enabled




I will appreciate any help about two problems that was mentioned in our Soft-reject reasons. We are a bit confuses what we need to do.

1. Please use a unique prefix for all function names, custom images sizes, classes, hooks, public/global variables, and database entries to avoid conflict issues with plugins and other themes.
example: -

If we look at the examples ThemeForest gave us, we can see that they want us to prefix the functions inside Widgets. widget(), update() and form() —> We cannot prefix these functions since they are used by WordPress to initialize the widgets. What can we do here ?

2. Page comments are not enabled.

We have an option to hide comments on pages and posts, but by default they are visible. Page comments can also be disabled as native WordPress setting. What does this error mean, since we are not changing any WordPress behavior and we are not changing it?
Code we use for page comments:

    if ( 1 != adriana_setting( 'page-comments-block' ) ) {
     // If comments are open, load up the comment template.
     if ( comments_open() ) :
      echo comments_template( );

Thank you in advance for your help.


1.) that’s a total nonsense as you’ve said yourself, just write the same in the comments when you resubmit the theme. PM me a name of the reviewer pls, I am just curious

2.) What’s the point of if ( 1 != adriana_setting( 'page-comments-block' ) ) { if there is if ( comments_open() ) already? The first IF is redundant, you just complicating things with it. Remove it

  1. Double check everything but as LSVRthemes says explain that you can’t do that.

  2. I have a message about this too. I think the idea is that when they install the unit testing data the the page with comments on it should show comments without them setting any options. If it does that it should pass requirements.

People have been rejected by having a theme comments option so I would def remove it.

I suspect that there is a lot of searching globally and rejecting without looking at the code properly. I guess because of the work load atm. But If you explain they should be fine. I have done so about things like that and they have been fine about it. Of cause if they told us these things in advance then there wouldn’t be such much to check :slight_smile:


Guys thank you for your help.
We assumed that sometimes they rush when reviewing and because of that they indicate non existing errors.

We will try to explain to the reviewer.