Hello
I installed TGv2 just now and it kind of worked (the installation part). https://prnt.sc/osychqHXbCTp here is a screenshot of the admin. Now.. it looks like it worked but when i click on ANY of the links in the sidebar - all give me a 404.

How did I reach this state:
1. downloaded TG from github as zip and unzipped.
2. ran the install (edited config files, deleted modules/setup folder)
3. we're here now. all links except this are 404.

here is a screenshot of the modules/ folder in the zip archive i downloaded from github ... https://prnt.sc/1t_je1twV2Zc

it looks like the modules for /messages, news, settings, reports and dashboard are all missing...

Hello Balazs,

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, and I personally know how much DC cares about being positive and keeping the good vibes (and not being a downer). But I believe that being truthful is more important than being positive at all costs. So, I will be as to-the-point as possible. I hope that you will forgive me, DC, Balazs, for not being "nice". I try very hard to not be "rude" or a "downer". I aim hard to be just in the middle and be real. So. Please do read and please do respond (not with a ban) I want to have a conversation, if possible.

This answer is very hard for me to accept. I have to say I expected at least a working admin area from a Framework that has documentation that claims that TGv2 is "production ready" not only so but "enterprise ready".

Actually. I do not expect an 'enterprise ready' framework to have a working admin area. I do not expect an admin area at all. The problem is not that there is no admin modules. The problem is it looks like there are modules, the links look perfectly regular links. They are not grayed out. They do not lead to "/#" or whatever. There is no message "This page is here as a place holder, feel free to get creative and add your own modules". The links all lead to 404 pages. By the new kid on the block this can be read as only one thing - "broken". The question here is not if it is broken. It is a question of "did I screw up the install process" vs "is the framework broken". After a short investigation I knew there was no modules in the folder that correspond to the links urls... so I knew it has to be the framework. Especially after checking the zip archive and the `master` branch on github (and asking claude to dig in and find whats wrong). So my initial experience was that the framework itself is broken.

Coming to the forums only to be told by one of the most distinguished community members, that this is 'normal' and 'my perception was wrong'...

I say this experience very much diminished any confidence I had in the framework. If it is visibly broken right after a clean install, then what is one to expect when they start using the code to build things?

I don't have the time to risk on it. Sorry.

... And I would put some time into it if it was advertised as 'being in the making' and 'needing improvements' but it is advertised as 'enterprise ready' - and from an enterprise ready product I expect it to be 99.99% working no bugs. It might be small but it has to be of top quality. My so-far experience with TG is the reverse. A lot of features, very dubious quality.

:/

What I find far more concerning is the leap you made from that minor observation to declaring the framework "broken", "dubious quality", and not fit for production.

Those placeholder links have been part of the admin template since day one. Thousands of developers have downloaded and used Trongate over the years, and you're the first person I've ever seen conclude that they somehow prove the framework itself is broken. That should perhaps prompt a little self-reflection before writing several paragraphs condemning the entire project.

You repeatedly tell us you're "just being truthful" and "not trying to be rude", yet your post reads as though the project has somehow failed to meet obligations that simply don't exist. This is a free, open source framework developed by people who owe you absolutely nothing.

The irony is that your own investigation showed the modules didn't exist. A logical conclusion would have been, "These are placeholder links." Instead, you chose, "The framework is broken." Those are very different conclusions.

Experienced developers understand the difference between a cosmetic UX issue and a structural flaw. They don't take one imperfection and extrapolate it into a verdict on the quality of an entire codebase.

If your confidence in a framework is genuinely destroyed by a few placeholder menu items, then perhaps open source development isn't going to meet your expectations. Most of us judge frameworks by their architecture, documentation, code quality, performance, extensibility, and maintainability, not by whether a starter template contains links intended to be customised.

Constructive criticism is always welcome. Hyperbole isn't. If your actual point was, "The placeholder links could be clearer," I think everyone would agree with you. Instead, you wrapped that perfectly reasonable suggestion in a needlessly dramatic assessment of the entire framework, and that's why your post comes across as far more negative than constructive.

You're right DaFa. Thanks for the well written answer!

This thread is the reason why I hate discussion forums. What should have been a perfectly reasonable and helpful comment was presented as a full frontal attack on the framework.

In this forum, alternative opinions will always be respected. However, naysayers should also respect the fact that I'm not obligated to deal with them. Ever.

I want to thank Balazs for such a helpful response. I would expect no less from him. Our gratitude for everything Balazs has done for this framework knows no limits. He is the face of Trongate.

However, I want to thank Dafa - in particular - for his brilliant response. This entire thread needed somebody to speak truth and that is precisely what Dafa just did. He has just reminded me why I consider him to be the ruler of this forum.

I'm so grateful to have somebody like you as a friend, Dafa. Thank you.

DC

Hello YavorK,

Thanks for the feedback. I agree that being truthful is important, even if it can be a little uncomfortable at times. We've had some heated discussions here before, which is ultimately a sign of a healthy community, so there is absolutely no problem with bringing up a topic that made you feel insecure about the framework.

I understand your frustration, but it's worth keeping in mind that it is just a template. It's something you ought to customize later anyway to fit your specific project. That said, perhaps we should look into this matter and find a way to make it more straightforward out of the box. Making the framework more beginner-friendly is in everyone's best interest!

However, I do think you might have jumped to some overly harsh conclusions about Trongate. DaFa did a wonderful job explaining why those assumptions might be a bit premature, and I completely agree with his points. I really encourage you to keep exploring what Trongate has to offer. Some truly exceptional web development masterminds have contributed to this framework, and it's built on a genuinely rock-solid architecture.

Thanks for the feedback YavorK, and to everyone who contributed to the discussion. This prompted a review of the admin template, and a fix has been submitted via pull request #238 (https://github.com/trongate/trongate-framework/pull/238).

The change is straightforward: all sidebar navigation links that pointed to non-existent modules (Dashboard, Messages, Manage News, Reports, Settings, Manage Users) now use href="#" instead of href values that produced 404 errors.

This is consistent with the existing header nav links (Messages (1), Orders) which already used href="#" as the convention for non-navigating placeholder items. The links remain in the template as examples for developers to replace with their own module links, but they no longer give the impression the framework is broken after a fresh install.

The fix is on master at: https://github.com/trongate/trongate-framework/pull/238