v9.0.3 Release

[Mark H]

"It always used to.
In fact I just checked and it does."

Glad we got that one sorted out

[Jarvis]

Roger sorry off topic but if you use "Acronis" for your backups...

Thanks for the advice Chris, not off topics at all.
To be honest, I'm pretty well covered with backups etc.
I run 4 PC's through a server.
Snapshots are saved to the server which is backed up daily.
In addition, my PC, (and Laptop) have the Actinic directories backed up a few times a day to a separate large external drive.
(I use SyncToy for this).

My issue is that v9.0.3, at least for some designers, is so fragile you only have to give it a dirty look and it faints!
Snapshots take time and so does recovery.
I am currently working, (new and upgrades), on 5 carts with another 3 ready to start after Christmas.
Fixing Actinic has never featured in my normal workflow in the past, but now is a major factor.

[pinbrook]

things haven't improved on the bug front since v8 was released

http://community.actinic.com/showpos...7&postcount=19

my post refers to an 8.04 to 8.5.1 upgrade

[malbro]

> Actinic used to check for this in the paste operation. But the performance overhead became too great with large sites, and we had to move the duplicate check. It now takes place during upload. In previous versions, unfortunately the check was not thorough enough. v903 picks up duplications that previous versions missed.

Another feature that seems to be new in V9 is you can setup a section with no page name, Actinic then allocates one for you, but this name is not picked up in the menu so that you get a menu option that leads nowhere. Is this another feature related to the movement of the duplicates check?

Can I add my vote to a selectable option where I can run the checks that occur during upload at a point I choose, i.e. as a menu option?

[brucet]

Another feature that seems to be new in V9 is you can setup a section with no page name, Actinic then allocates one for you, but this name is not picked up in the menu so that you get a menu option that leads nowhere.

Actinic has always allocated a page name if you don't specify one. By default it will use the section name followed by .html, and with spaces replaced by underscores. As for it not being picked up in the menu, I have never seen that, and having just tried it I can't reproduce it. Any time that happens I think you need to raise it with support.

[malbro]

Actinic has always allocated a page name if you don't specify one. By default it will use the section name followed by .html, and with spaces replaced by underscores. As for it not being picked up in the menu, I have never seen that, and having just tried it I can't reproduce it. Any time that happens I think you need to raise it with support.

I am working on a snapshot from a client that has a number of sections which are missing the page name. Having uploaded the site to a host site (Actinic hosting) I found that selecting the option from the navigation menu did not access the required page. Adding a name to the section and then publishing the site cured the problem.

I still have the original snapshot if you would like to take a look (approx 12Mb), I have an account with SendThisFile if it is too big for email, I just need an email address to send the download details.

[brucet]

It's not normally possible to create a section with no page name in Actinic, so it could be a database corruption. But if a page does have no name, it presumably can't exist on the web site, so IMO Actinic is right not to link to it...

I'm afraid if wouldn't be much help for me to look at your snapshot. I know I'm labelled 'developer' in this community, and I do sit within that team, but I'm a product manager not a technical dude. You need to contact support in the first instance, and if they are unable to help, they will escalate the problem to a developer.

[NRasool]

Hey Malcolm

I am working on a snapshot from a client that has a number of sections which are missing the page name. Having uploaded the site to a host site (Actinic hosting) I found that selecting the option from the navigation menu did not access the required page. Adding a name to the section and then publishing the site cured the problem.

Don't suppose your client was using v4 or an old version of Actinic and upgraded to v8/v9? If so, then this could explain why the pagename is blanked out, BruceT is right, Actinic should always populate the page name with the section name, but if you was on an old version of Actinic then it could be the reason. One thing I would mention if this is the case, is that the "ActinicCatalog.mdb" that holds all the data may be in Access97 format (Common for v4), so if you have Access2000, then you would need to upgrade the version of 97 to 2000 (otherwise you may get other problems).

If you wasn't on an old version, then please disregards this

Kind Regards

[malbro]

If you wasn't on an old version, then please disregards this

Kind Regards

Hi

It is a new site done in version 9.0.2, I have just tried in V8.5.3 and V9.0.3 and in both versions I can delete the page name and Actinic allows me to save the section without a html page name. For me that is very strange behaviour which I did not expect, the lack of a link in the menu doesn't surprise me as the page name field is empty.

[leehack]

I've got a site in 8.5.3 also that has numerous sections without page names. Looks like a bug to me, i never saw it in 8.5.2. Either 8.5.3 is deleting this info or it is allowing a blank field, which is clearly not good. I suspect 9.0.3 has inherited this problem from 853.

[malbro]

I've got a site in 8.5.3 also that has numerous sections without page names. Looks like a bug to me, i never saw it in 8.5.2. Either 8.5.3 is deleting this info or it is allowing a blank field, which is clearly not good. I suspect 9.0.3 has inherited this problem from 853.

Lee

I deliberately deleted the page name and saved it to see what happened and I was allowed to do it, like you I believe that the software should catch this, at least a warning message.

[leehack]

If it is allowing you to delete it, then that clearly is bonkers I agree.

[Mark H]

OK, where are we now with V9? We're just about to start on a brand new shop/site - do we use 902 or 903 (or some other version....)?

[pinbrook]

for a brand new site i'd probably wade in with 903.

[malbro]

OK, where are we now with V9? We're just about to start on a brand new shop/site - do we use 902 or 903 (or some other version....)?

The 'bugs' in 9.0.3 also exist in version back to 8.5.3 so I agree with Jo especially if its a new site.