Miva Merchant 10.00.x Bug Reports

[lesliekirk]

Issues with how the included version of Shadows is handled as it related to stores that have older versions of Shadows installed.

Item 1- I have run into an issue with a site that had a version of Shadows installed. When Miva had an update for Shadows it updates whatever version of Shadows is installed in the store. Thankfully it does not apply the framework to the templates. But the store shows that latest version of Shadows as the "Active" Framework. This is very misleading. In this case the store shows in the (Production Primary) Framework screen that Shadows 2.03.00 is the Active Framework with a Last Applied date of 4-8-2022 and Created Date of 3-29-2022. This is incorrect. In this store (Production Primary) Framework Shadows was applied on 8-5-2021 and was never "updated". I have no idea which version of Shadows is actually applied because of the way Shadows is updated.

Item 2 - (and might be a bug) I created a Branch (after first saving the Production Framework). I applied the latest version of Shadows to the new Branch. When I went to compare the Production Branch to the new Dev Branch (using the development preview) I noticed issues with the look & feel of the Production Branch. I created a third branch and applied the saved framework to it. I was expecting the Production Branch to look just like the saved framework branch but it didn't. I suspected an issue with the CSS files. I opened the site up via FTP and stated comparing file modified dates. In the Production directory /mm5/themes/00000001/shadows the dates on these files jumped right out at me:

core.css
core.js
extensions.css
extensions.js
polyfills.js
theme.css
theme.js

All of these files had the same time stamp as the Branch I created for the newest version of Shadows. I dug into other folders and discovered changes there too. The clue that gave it all away was the theme.css file. I had had an annotated version of the theme.css in the Production version and it had been overwritten when I installed the latest Shadows version into the Branch. I did notice that the folder dates for the Production directory /mm5/themes/00000001/shadows had the "correct" dates from when the ReadyTheme was first applied. But it went in an updated files in folders such as:

/mm5/themes/00000001/shadows/core/images
/mm5/themes/00000001/shadows/extensions/contact

Granted these updates might not be a bad thing but overwriting the theme.css that is not good. What is did to the entire Production version of Shadows is not good. I suspect the problem might be related to Item 1.

And as a side note, when I did apply the Shadows 2.03.00 to the branch, in addition to the ReadyTheme categories (I thought there were plans to not allow the framework to add these categories), some how categories that had been deleted back last fall right after the initial set up of the dev site were resurrected and re-added to the site.

FWIW - I really like having a copy of the current version of the UI but it really needs to not have the ability to overwrite the UI I 'm using just because they are the same file name.

[SidFeyDesigns]

Hi Eric Foresman

I actually noticed that in the Template Branches there was no issue.

We use Redis and I know in the Template Branches, Redis will not cache the page templates.

So I disconnected Redis and the issue went away in the Production Branch as well.

We do have some Transients set up with Tess's Module, so maybe there is a conflict.

I don't believe the issue was with the recent update, although I can't say for sure.

We started using Redis (early March) before the update rolled out so the issue could have already been there and I just didn't notice until now.

I'll create a ticket though and see if they can help me track down what is causing this to happen when Redis is turned on.

Thanks

[Eric Foresman]

The Smart Breadcrumbs don't seem to be functioning like they used to.

Prior to the update products could be assigned to multiple categories and the breadcrumbs would match the path you took to get to the product.

Now it only shows the path based on the product's canonical category code.

Ex:

Product 1 is assigned to Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3 with Category 1 being the canonical category

Breadcrumbs Before update:

Path 1: Category 1 > Product 1
Breadcrumbs: Category 1 > Product 1

Path 2: Category 2 > Product 1
Breadcrumbs: Category 2 > Product 1

Path 3: Category 3 > Product 1
Breadcrumbs: Category 3 > Product 1

Breadcrumbs After update:

Path 1: Category 1 > Product 1
Breadcrumbs: Category 1 > Product 1

Path 2: Category 2 > Product 1
Breadcrumbs: Category 1 > Product 1

Path 3: Category 3 > Product 1
Breadcrumbs: Category 1 > Product 1

Is this the new intended functionality or is this a bug?

Or shall I contact support in the event that it could be due to custom code within our templates?

Thanks in advance.

Hi SidFeyDesigns

I’m not able to reproduce that issue in my test store. Did you have any luck tracking this down with support?

Thanks

-Eric

[SidFeyDesigns]

The Smart Breadcrumbs don't seem to be functioning like they used to.

Prior to the update products could be assigned to multiple categories and the breadcrumbs would match the path you took to get to the product.

Now it only shows the path based on the product's canonical category code.

Ex:

Product 1 is assigned to Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3 with Category 1 being the canonical category

Breadcrumbs Before update:

Path 1: Category 1 > Product 1
Breadcrumbs: Category 1 > Product 1

Path 2: Category 2 > Product 1
Breadcrumbs: Category 2 > Product 1

Path 3: Category 3 > Product 1
Breadcrumbs: Category 3 > Product 1

Breadcrumbs After update:

Path 1: Category 1 > Product 1
Breadcrumbs: Category 1 > Product 1

Path 2: Category 2 > Product 1
Breadcrumbs: Category 1 > Product 1

Path 3: Category 3 > Product 1
Breadcrumbs: Category 1 > Product 1

Is this the new intended functionality or is this a bug?

Or shall I contact support in the event that it could be due to custom code within our templates?

Thanks in advance.

[SidFeyDesigns]

Awesome.

Not sure if this is possible but when running updates, maybe there could be an option to backup and install

or

Miva could just automatically run a backup before the install so there's less of a chance of losing orders/data.

[Rick Wilson]

The patch for 10.03.00 is back up and 10.03.01 is now out. The previous issue has been solved and for the 3 sites that restored from backup it's now safe to upgrade. For the 7 sites waiting for us to fix them, support will be updating you and applying the fix today and you should coordinate via your ticket.

[SidFeyDesigns]

Rick Wilson Got it, thank you.

Glad I reported the bug.

Joseph already restored the site to last nights backup.

I actually recreated the orders we lost manually (they were already downloaded into ShipWorks).

I even managed to match the original order numbers.

The payment data was lost in Miva, but at least the customer can still look up their order from the original order confirmation.

Luckily this only effected 3 orders and 1 customer account.

Thank you Miva for the great and fast customer support.

Cheers.

[Rick Wilson]

As of now the plan is:

1. Put up a fixed stream tomorrow that doesn't cause this issue (there will be no way to stream 10.03.00 until then for people who didn't already stream it.

2. For the 3 customers who we're aware of that have the issue, we're going to build a custom import file to import that paths back into your software (which is what the updated patch would do for new customers tomorrow in essence) and that'll restore all of those image paths in your store.

This should all be complete by EOD tomorrow (March 30th).

If you need your image paths back faster, our only current option is to restore your site to last nights backup (which will roll you back but you'll lose any data that was added after last night's backup). Or you can import those paths back in on your own as well.

If you want us to go the restore route (or if you want to fix the paths manually) let us know.

[Rick Wilson]

I believe you're correct but we're still getting to the full root cause. We'll post a fix/process shortly

[lesliekirk]

The issue appears to only impact people who's Category Tree Template images are not using the Image Machine, so limited in scope. We've pulled the patch until it's fixed though. We expect to be able to fix this on any sites that end up with this issue.

Point of clarification? The site I checked, uploaded these images via the standard Category Tree Tree Image which I assume is now part of the Image Machine even though not where most people used to associate uploading images using the Image Machine (via the Images tab in the Product edit screen). That would make sense then that SidFeyDesigns lost all paths because they were hand crafted and added to the field.

[SidFeyDesigns]

All of our Category Tree images are in their own directory (created by me) that I upload via ftp.

The directory is graphics/category-images/

I did this a while back when we used to just use Miva image machine generated images from certain products.

But if I ever changed the product image and deleted the old one we would have broken images.

So, I put them in their own directory that can't be deleted within Miva.

[Rick Wilson]

The issue appears to only impact people who's Category Tree Template images are not using the Image Machine, so limited in scope. We've pulled the patch until it's fixed though. We expect to be able to fix this on any sites that end up with this issue.

[lesliekirk]

Huge bug with the new 10.03.00 update.

It completely wiped every category's category tree image field.

Looks like I'll have to fill in all those fields manually, unless there is a way to retrieve what used to be in there.

Category Tree Tree Image field? I ran the update on a dev site and checked that field after seeing this post. The site I ran the update on still has it's Category Tree Tree Image fields filled. BUT what was the image path for your fields? Do you recall? This site has graphics/00000001/7/ (how it got to 7 I do not know). Wondering if that could be part of the issue you are seeing?

[Rick Wilson]

No that's fine.

[SidFeyDesigns]

Rick Wilson I already have a ticket open with support for the recent migration to Miva's hosting, so I let Joseph Kelemen know in that ticket.

Would you suggest I open a separate ticket?

Thanks.