nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Odd behavior after upgrade

bagman

We are testing our upgrade from 5.5.2 to 6.1 (Solaris) on a dev server and have come across an interesting issue in some of our templates.

It appears the new engine is creating replicants out of fields that were not replicants before. Also, users are reporting that required fields that have dropdown menus are not accepting "default" values (in the case of edits to existing DCR). An error comes back saying the field is required if they do not change the value of the dropdown even though it may be showing a valid value when they open the file.

Has anyone else experienced these types of issues when upgrading?

Attached is an example of the datacapture.cfg file that's showing fields as replicants although they are not coded to be. Maybe I'm not seeing something in the code...

Appreciate any insights...

Mark

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

gzevin

can you tell us which fields are showing as replicants?

Greg Zevin, Ph.D. Comp. Sc.
Independent Interwoven Consultant/Architect
Sydney, AU

bagman

The "Meta Keywords" and "Review Cycle" fields are the ones replicating when they shouldn't be.

gzevin

you put 'max' in tjose fields instead of 'maxlength'.

thos causes this strange behaviour. It's likely a bug in the parser (IMO, in both 5.5. and 6.1 - as one has allowed such syntax, another is interpreting it in a wrong way).

IWOV people - please have a look, it's definitely a buggish behaviour

Greg Zevin, Ph.D. Comp. Sc.
Independent Interwoven Consultant/Architect
Sydney, AU

Adam Stoller

I think the bug per se is only in 5.5 - in that it didn't flag the attribute as being unaccepted (my guess is that it didn't do *anything* in 5.5)
In 6.x - each item is allowed to be its own replicant (that's documented) so having a 'max' attribute is now "correct" and will turn the item into a replicant.

--fish
Senior Consultant, Quotient Inc.
http://www.quotient-inc.com

gzevin

I both agree and disagree with you. I inspected DTD, and yes, 'max' is allowed. However, with IWOV XML, this was not necessarily enough to make it valid....

Greg Zevin, Ph.D. Comp. Sc.
Independent Interwoven Consultant/Architect
Sydney, AU

gzevin

Actually, this should be picked up by IWOV as an item to check during upgrades. This is the second time I notice such incosistent behaviour and exhibition of incompatibility.

Greg Zevin, Ph.D. Comp. Sc.
Independent Interwoven Consultant/Architect
Sydney, AU

Migrateduser

I have opened a developer bug on this issue.

Staff Engineer, Installation Development
Interwoven, Inc.
Moving Business to the Web