Screws Up New Sections

When the extension creates new sections it sometimes creates fields twice and totally misses others. The is especially bad if it request and ID for a select box link as it breaks other sections.

See example below. I can send the data file created it it helps.

Its worth noting i changed the section around add/removing/renaming the fields a bit before publishing to production.

[davjand]

There is a bug that sometimes occurs if multiple updates are run at once. I
thought I had fixed it but I'm not sure.

My workflow is to make sure only one update runs at a time at the moment.
If you can reproduce this issue then let me know and I can help you debug it

Cheers, Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On 9 Dec 2013, at 17:18, korelogic notifications@github.com wrote:

Its worth notiting i changed the section around add/removing/renaming the
fields a bit before publishing to production.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on
GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/29#issuecomment-30151473
.

It's happened a few times now. It seems to happen if I delete and recreate fields.

Best Regards
Michael Hay

On 9 Dec 2013, at 20:11, David Anderson notifications@github.com wrote:

There is a bug that sometimes occurs if multiple updates are run at once. I
thought I had fixed it but I'm not sure.

My workflow is to make sure only one update runs at a time at the moment.
If you can reproduce this issue then let me know and I can help you debug it

Cheers, Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On 9 Dec 2013, at 17:18, korelogic notifications@github.com wrote:

Its worth notiting i changed the section around add/removing/renaming the
fields a bit before publishing to production.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on
GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/29#issuecomment-30151473
.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

Btw I used to uses nick dunns db synchroniser. That worked fine but stored everything as SQL statements in a file and required a core hack.

However was reliable. That coupled with your UI and deployment hooks would be better than using the delegates to log changes?

Best Regards
Michael Hay

On 9 Dec 2013, at 20:11, David Anderson notifications@github.com wrote:

There is a bug that sometimes occurs if multiple updates are run at once. I
thought I had fixed it but I'm not sure.

My workflow is to make sure only one update runs at a time at the moment.
If you can reproduce this issue then let me know and I can help you debug it

Cheers, Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On 9 Dec 2013, at 17:18, korelogic notifications@github.com wrote:

Its worth notiting i changed the section around add/removing/renaming the
fields a bit before publishing to production.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on
GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/29#issuecomment-30151473
.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[davjand]

If you could send me a copy of

1. Your local database
2. Your remote database
3. Your transaction files (in the data folder)

Then I can have a look at the bug this weekend if you want. (dave@veodesign.co.uk)
Obviously no worries if there is confidential info in there etc.

I take it you’ve seen my boilerplate repository that details all the hooks and workflow etc?

Thanks
Dave

On 10 Dec 2013, at 08:32, korelogic notifications@github.com wrote:

Btw I used to uses nick dunns db synchroniser. That worked fine but stored everything as SQL statements in a file and required a core hack.

However was reliable. That coupled with your UI and deployment hooks would be better than using the delegates to log changes?

Best Regards
Michael Hay

On 9 Dec 2013, at 20:11, David Anderson notifications@github.com wrote:

There is a bug that sometimes occurs if multiple updates are run at once. I
thought I had fixed it but I'm not sure.

My workflow is to make sure only one update runs at a time at the moment.
If you can reproduce this issue then let me know and I can help you debug it

Cheers, Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On 9 Dec 2013, at 17:18, korelogic notifications@github.com wrote:

Its worth notiting i changed the section around add/removing/renaming the
fields a bit before publishing to production.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on
GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/29#issuecomment-30151473
.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

I cant really but its pretty easy to simulate by adding and removing fields a few times.

Best Regards,
Michael Hay

Korelogic

Phone: 0845 154 8339
Email: michael.hay@korelogic.co.uk
Web: http://www.korelogic.co.uk

On 10 Dec 2013, at 22:37, David Anderson notifications@github.com wrote:

If you could send me a copy of

1. Your local database
2. Your remote database
3. Your transaction files (in the data folder)

Then I can have a look at the bug this weekend if you want. (dave@veodesign.co.uk)
Obviously no worries if there is confidential info in there etc.

I take it you’ve seen my boilerplate repository that details all the hooks and workflow etc?

Thanks
Dave

On 10 Dec 2013, at 08:32, korelogic notifications@github.com wrote:

Btw I used to uses nick dunns db synchroniser. That worked fine but stored everything as SQL statements in a file and required a core hack.

However was reliable. That coupled with your UI and deployment hooks would be better than using the delegates to log changes?

Best Regards
Michael Hay

On 9 Dec 2013, at 20:11, David Anderson notifications@github.com wrote:

There is a bug that sometimes occurs if multiple updates are run at once. I
thought I had fixed it but I'm not sure.

My workflow is to make sure only one update runs at a time at the moment.
If you can reproduce this issue then let me know and I can help you debug it

Cheers, Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On 9 Dec 2013, at 17:18, korelogic notifications@github.com wrote:

Its worth notiting i changed the section around add/removing/renaming the
fields a bit before publishing to production.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on
GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/29#issuecomment-30151473
.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[davjand]

Are you talking about adding and removing fields a few times PER database commit or adding a field, commit, remove field, commit etc

I’ll try and take a look into it when I get a chance

On 11 Dec 2013, at 08:32, korelogic notifications@github.com wrote:

I cant really but its pretty easy to simulate by adding and removing fields a few times.

Best Regards,
Michael Hay

Korelogic

Phone: 0845 154 8339
Email: michael.hay@korelogic.co.uk
Web: http://www.korelogic.co.uk

On 10 Dec 2013, at 22:37, David Anderson notifications@github.com wrote:

If you could send me a copy of

1. Your local database
2. Your remote database
3. Your transaction files (in the data folder)

Then I can have a look at the bug this weekend if you want. (dave@veodesign.co.uk)
Obviously no worries if there is confidential info in there etc.

I take it you’ve seen my boilerplate repository that details all the hooks and workflow etc?

Thanks
Dave

On 10 Dec 2013, at 08:32, korelogic notifications@github.com wrote:

Btw I used to uses nick dunns db synchroniser. That worked fine but stored everything as SQL statements in a file and required a core hack.

However was reliable. That coupled with your UI and deployment hooks would be better than using the delegates to log changes?

Best Regards
Michael Hay

On 9 Dec 2013, at 20:11, David Anderson notifications@github.com wrote:

There is a bug that sometimes occurs if multiple updates are run at once. I
thought I had fixed it but I'm not sure.

My workflow is to make sure only one update runs at a time at the moment.
If you can reproduce this issue then let me know and I can help you debug it

Cheers, Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On 9 Dec 2013, at 17:18, korelogic notifications@github.com wrote:

Its worth notiting i changed the section around add/removing/renaming the
fields a bit before publishing to production.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on
GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/29#issuecomment-30151473
.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.