modifying the header.php file for advanced_search_result

[monkeytown]

If there is a better way to do this, please let me know.

I have set up a store for the company I work for. We currently have an Ecom site that is basically crap, so we are developing our own in Zen. We offer around 36000 items, but we are limiting the number that you can browse. Still we want all 36000 to be available through search.

The way I am handling that is to have levels (products_status) of items. Status 1 is of course a regular item that you can click through the catagories to get to. Status 2 is only searchable so you can only see these items if you search for them, or use an item number (out of one of our catalogs). There is actually a 3rd level where you can only order an item by using the Quick Order mod and typing in an item number.

All that to set up my actual question. I have it working by modifying the header.php file located at

includes/modules/pages/advanced_search_result/header.php

I have tried to override this file, but I was unsure of the path I needed to use to override it. I have tried several things, but none of them have worked. Perhaps I just need to overwrite the file instead of overriding it.

Any help is appreciated. Also, like I said, if I there is a better way to do this whole system then let me know.

[Ajeh]

products_status is a field used extensively in the core code to manage products ...

You should really look at adding your own field for this as you are changing the logic of the code in a bazzilion places ...

[monkeytown]

Shouldn't the rest of the code just ignore anything that isn't status 1?

[monkeytown]

Eh, I am already seeing the pitfalls in this... unfortunately I don't know if I can modify it before my deadline of next Monday...

[monkeytown]

I think I have found a nice solution using the hideCategories mod. I can set my 3rd level (order by item number only) products as completely hidden and my 2nd level products (search, item entry only) to hidden from display. I think this will suit our needs. Without testing extensively, this seems to work and is much slicker and doesn't ruin the code as my previous method was.