v9.0.3 Release

[tantronics]

Hi Meden

We had a similar problem with duplicates see this post:

http://community.actinic.com/showthread.php?t=38293

Unfortunately Actinic support and development were a complete waste of time , so we ended up exporting the catalogue and editing it in Excel, then re-importing it.

I know it's not quite the same problem, but you may be waiting a long time for a solution from support and it might help you with a workaround.

[Paul Cooper]

Well we upgraded last night and seem to be having a few upload problems.

Issue 1.
Frequently, but inconsistently Actinic locks up at an early stage of uploading with the CPU running at 100% (Dual Core 2GHz), have to kill the process and reboot:

Just had the courage to upgrade after checking this thread last night and I get this problem as well.

Also, doing a flat file import generates 62,000 errors as it imports every row in the spread sheet (65k) not just the 3,400 product rows.

Back to 9.02 for me, time is simply too precious to be messing about at the moment.

[leehack]

Im having troubles doing a snapshot. 1st time it fails with a DMP error, 2nd and 3rd time it fails with with C++ runtime error. 4th time seems to go straight through no problems. Site uploads no problem at all and never reports any issues.

I seem to suffer very regular DMP errors when changing settings in site options too, often a crash then start up again and try again and it works. I'd expect permanent errors not intermittent ones if these were of any note.

The uploading seems to be working great, the stability of the overall product seems a bit wanting for me still. I must have 100 DMP files on my system which are just not sensible to keep forwarding to support. These all started appearing in V8, there must be something fundamentally wrong with the source code i'd have thought.

EDIT: 8th time it took to do a snapshot this time, but it did complete successfully finally.

[cbarling]

Lee, we only introduced the dump file capability in one of the v8 maintenance release, to help us debug crashes faster.

We do look at all of the dump files that are sent in.

Chris

[leehack]

It's the shear volume of them though Chris and no easy way to just send them off to you. I can almost at will create a DMP file, I can then open up actinic and do an identical operation and it works fine. I'd spend half my time registering a query, waiting for support to give me ftp or email details and then sending them off if I sent each one, just not really possible when you are trying to earn a living also.

I'd like to see these things ultimately sent to you automatically at a designated email address with the software handling it all. It's too clunky and time consuming to report them all. Or maybe an option at least, like the Microsoft option that pops up each time one of these happens. Microsoft probably have more DMP error reports than you do, that has to point to something that can be improved i'd have thought.

[Bun]

Im having troubles doing a snapshot. 1st time it fails with a DMP error, 2nd and 3rd time it fails with with C++ runtime error. 4th time seems to go straight through no problems.

I'm having the same problem as above.....I'm on my 5th snapshot at the moment.

[plantsforshade]

No problems taking the snapshots, but they have grown from 24mb to 37mb in the move from 9-0-2 to 9-0-3, a 50% increase in size!

Best

Nigel

[Bun]

I'm on my 15th attemp and still not managed to get a snapshot......I just hope my team (Wigan Athletic) can manage it after 15 attempts this afternoon

[chris ashdown]

Actinic Business Plus 4 computers local network ethernet

Installed V9.0.3 over 9.0.1(with sync mod)

Main computer with sites mdb's loaded ok and looks ok but not tried upload yet

Install over v9.0.1 on slave computer no 1

As slave unit looks ok, tried logging on as administrator it comes up with

Preparing site upgrade, Backing up all files, upgrading scripts, Pearl scripts have been modified. then opens new site but marketing sidebars not automatically generated

Move to next site

Preparing site upgrades again

So basically you have to go through each site on each networked computer in Administrator mode at least once to clear this as each time it overwrites the Protx OCC file

Looks ok in slave mode but not tried upload download files yet


Move to new computer fresh with just xp installed

Load 9.0.3
Set up networked mdb location and slave password etc

As Slave unit looks OK but as Administrator

Every time you change site it comes up with

Do you want to use default design for the imported design

Yes , No,, Cancel

Press cancel and looks ok until you change sites then repeats question even if you go back to same site

Select No comes up with Failed to load files of the theme "Business" upgrader failed

Say yes and same responce as No

Sun is out on Great Yarmouth, just hope its pissing down on a more South Western town

[brucet]

> Can we have a bit more information on fixing this please?

Mick, the only fix for the duplicate page generation warning is to make sure that every Section and Subsection has a unique .htm or .html page name.

If you have two pages with the same name, the second one to be uploaded will overwrite the first and you will lose a page from your catalogue. One common cause of this is if you copy and paste a Section, then delete 'Copy_of' from the page name without changing the rest of the name.

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.

[TraceyHand]

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.

Is it only me who thinks this is significant information that hasn't been described this way before now?
It effectively explains why 903 is so regularly throwing up this error on upload when it rarely did before.

it's always been seen as a "bug" when it's not really. It's just throwing up, during upload, a legitimate warning that would usually have cropped up earlier.

[RuralWeb]

I agree Tracy. This is a significant change that I have not seen documented anywhere. It's a real pita for one site I have and I cannot see why actinic have done this. Removing the check from the point of section creation is stupid IMO as now the first you see it it when it trashes upload. It may help a few large sites - who should k ow not to create same section names by the time theyget that big. But it makes it much harder for new users who need the working earlier to stop them making the mistake.

We seem to be getting changes driven by a few big sites - who they are I don't know but they are at the expence of the smaller users.

[Duncan Rounding]

Does the Check Coding Errors action on the toolbar pick up these extended page name duplication errors?

If not then I think should. A message with an option to run the Coding Check can be shown just prior to upload. As always, error messages must be specific to be able to determine what and where the problem is. Fiinding errors like this part way through an upload is too late.

[RuralWeb]

No it's not shown as a coding error which I suppose technichally it's not so would not be picked up by the tool bar. The page name check was a valuable function which has been removed for no good reason that I can see.

I have never seen it mentioned as a problem on the forum or wish lists so where was it shown to be a problem in it's old method??? The site I am having problems with has gone from v7 all the way through every version to v9.0.2 and beta .0.3 without problem but as soon as it goes into .3 live it fails to upload. What is the point of beta testing if things are changed again before release and problems created when we tell clients and the forum that the beta works fine we are made to look complete idiots.

[pinbrook]

If you have two pages with the same name, the second one to be uploaded will overwrite the first and you will lose a page from your catalogue. One common cause of this is if you copy and paste a Section, then delete 'Copy_of' from the page name without changing the rest of the name.

surely this is exactly when it needs to be checked

Actinic used to check for this in the paste operation.

yes as we would expect, someone makes an error and you tel them immediately

But the performance overhead became too great with large sites, and we had to move the duplicate check.

so wouldn't it be better to find a solution for larger sites rather than remove critical checking for everyone else

It now takes place during upload.

absolutely bonkers idea

In previous versions, unfortunately the check was not thorough enough. v903 picks up duplications that previous versions missed.

so are you saying the previous method didn't work proparly because it did it at paste time and now it happens at upload time is now is correct or the previous method didn't work and couldn't be fixed to work at paste time thus moved to upload time or wasthe decision to move it to upload time taken purely for performance issues. Wouldn't it be better software to put a tick box in that people with larger sites could use to opt to remove the check, thus the duplications get caught at the right time (paste time or creation time) and then during uploads small/mediums stil run the check but would never fail?