unfortunately, the live upgrade encountered this same issue yesterday. Based on the past experience, once IPS have time to answer my ticket from early this morning I think we will finally complete our upgrade today .... (think it took about 6 hours from the fix on the test site to the completion of the rebuild). Other than that everything seems to be good at first glance.
As a post-script to this, and in the interests of fairness, I should point out that IPS did help me, and so did my hosting provider. In the end IPS were not able to bodyswerve the ticket and between the three of us (me, host, IPS) we got it sorted. I believe both of them went beyond the official remit they provide so I have thanked both privately, and now publicly. the problem turned out to be something in the database that was neither the fault of the software or the hosting environment. The rebuild process got hung up on a couple of database entries that had either got corrupted or were malformed in some way and it killed the process stone dead. My host changed me from litespeed to apache for better (less generic) error reporting and we then had to take my live site offline for a little while to troubleshoot as we thought htaccess in root may have been affecting the development subdomain. This allowed IPS to identify the problem and hep me get over it. The rest of the rebuild process worked without a hitch and it looks like my test install is working as expected. All being well we do now intend to commit to the upgrade next week !
With regards to Lindy's comments, I do understand. I have worked as a global software asset manager / licensing administrator for the last 10 years buying and maintaining (mostly networked) software for a large multinational company and I tend to disagree about the nature of test installs. To me, to my company, and even the vendors to whom we pay our yearly maintenance fees, the test install is part of the overall software lifecycle for the customer and should not be regarded as a separate or second license. I need to test it in a development environment before I can put it into a production one. its common sense. IPS have always helped in this regard and if you were to look back on my tickets I would have to say that the vast majority of them have been logged either before or during an upgrade. Once the new version is up and running it is typically very stable and does not require much support (in my case anyway). I hear what you say about the test environment doubling your work, but would also question whether that is true or just anecdotal? In my case, we have had a few issues along the way with the tests, but the bugs have been worked out, so if my upgrade goes to plan and does not have a hitch I wont require support for the actual upgrade itself and I would hazard a guess that many users are the same. Even if I get the same issue as this week, I will be able to point support in the direction of the last ticket so checking if the database has made the process fall over would be the first item to check and resolvable very quickly .... I agree it is frustrating for IPS when your tech may be working on an issue on a test install and the customer blows it away from in front of their very eyes. I would go further and call it ignorant in fact. I could have done that with one of my tickets but did not ... thats why I ended up waiting 16 days for the ip.content fix with the html code as I know I need to get over this hurdle before I can move on and I wont get over it by blowing everything up and starting again. However, your suggestion that it is bugs that are causing the frustration and that should be a reason to not be an early adopter is wrong. It is not the bugs that are frustrating, but the reaction to them from our software provider. Regardless of the circumstance, I as a customer felt hung out to dry with the initial response which basically felt like a big middle finger, and as I have noted, it was not the first time.
I understand where you are coming from and I dont think I am being unreasonable. I waited 16 days for my last issue to be resolved and didnt complain too much even though it caused me to miss my target upgrade date of 30th May (there was a reason for choosing that date). I know they were busy with V4.0 issues on live sites so I sucked it up and have set myself a new target date (again, there is a reason for this date). I realise they are still busy with live sites and I have no problem with slipping down the priority list for a few days but that's not the case here. they are saying this will not be addressed because its a test site. I find that part to be ridiculous. To your other point ... if IPS could point me in the direction of a fix and all worked well I would actually use the 'fix' to commit to the upgrade so yes I do want the same level of support commitment. I view the testing process as a crucial part of the actual upgrade. I am an active member on another board that recently upgraded to 4.0 and it was down for nearly 2 weeks with technical issues when they upgraded. I am not prepared to risk the same issue affecting my users if I can help it !! As an illustration that even now I dont think I am being unreasonable, I sent a request to IPS at 6AM (EST) asking what scripts or pages are being called during the rebuild process? This would allow my VPS providers who are willing to troubleshoot on the server side and see exactly what is going on. I received a response from IPS at lunchtime (EST) today to say they "cannot work with test installs at this time". They did not address the question. So I asked it again and 11 hours later there is still no response despite the fact that the 2 minutes it would take to pass on the info would mean IPS could bodyswerve the whole ticket, and potentially receive a verified solution for anyone else who might experience the same problem. I have a feeling my long wait may be deliberate ........ (same thing happened last time I posted in open forum ! before my posts were deleted.)
simply untrue I have a current ticket outstanding (917384) for what I hoped would be a final test to the upgrade process from 3.4.8 to 4.0.x. As with previous tests, i ran into errors, and although the previous ones were seen as bugs and IPS helped me through it without saying they did not support test sites, this is the response I got for my latest issue which was signed by the "Hosting and Support Manager". ISSUE Upgrade from 3.4.8 to 4.0.7 performs without hitch. involves 3 or 4 manual sql queries that are provided but thats about all I had to do other than make sure my paths were adjusted before i started the process. Test site and admin back end are both operational. however when accessing the admin dashboard i get a message to say the queue task is locking frequently and the background processes to rebuild everything is frozen in time. When I setup a cron job - using the instructions provided - nothing happens, and when I try to run it manually the screen starts to do something then quickly errors out with a 503 error. I figured this was a prime candidate to log a ticket, a showstopper if you will. I logged a ticket with IPS and also with my VPS provider. RESPONSE (from IPB) Here is the response in full Hello, If you hit this issue on your live site, please let us know, however we are unable to provide support for test site per our restrictions below. To ensure that all customers receive fair and comparable support, I'm afraid we are unable to provide support for test or development installations via the client area. If, however, the issue persists with your live / production installation, please do let us know and we will be happy to investigate further. Alternatively, there are development support resources available at http://community.invisionpower.com . I am sorry we're unable to be of more assistance at this time. Thank you for your understanding.
I expect this kind of response from a 2bit $10 a year shared host, but not from IPB, especially given that this restriction is not mentioned on their service standards page: https://www.invisionpower.com/legal/standards . Are you seriously saying that you will NOT support a customer who is trying to use best practices to test, test, and re-test the upgrade process from their current live site so they do not adversely affect their own customers/members by performing an untried upgrade on their live site? Its almost as ludicrous as not being allowed to change the test url of your test site ! After some serious showstoppers (RC6 deleted all images from live site, early versions of 4.0 ignored - and continue to ignore - archived content, ip.content conversion adds html paragraph code to article titles, ip content continues to add additional spacing in all articles) and now this one do you seriously think anyone in their right mind should even consider doing an untested upgrade? You might be able to fix it if we do, but fixing it on a live site affects our members ... I have logged only 5 tickets in 2015 related to V4 upgrades and they have varied in severity and duration to resolve - 3 days, 8 days, 16 days, 2 days, and now the one I logged yesterday. My VPS provider replies within 30 minutes and now awaits the answer to a couple of questions related to my ticket, but it seems IPS does not want to know......
You buy the software and get (that version of) the software forever but you also get 6 or 12 months of ticket support and access to any new versions released in that time without any additional payments. At the end of the support period you have the option to renew your maintenance/support or to let it lapse. If you renew you continue to get access to new versions and support, if you do not renew you can continue to use the product up to the version number that was available when your maintenance expired. We currently have one active license and one we let expire. I work in this field as a software administrator and network licensing specialist and it is an standard not just for forums but across all sectors (mine is engineering). What is not standard, and where IPS should be applauded is that if you let your maintenance lapse IPS will allow you to renew at any time for the standard renewal fee whereas some of the big companies I deal with backdate your renewal to the date of expiry if you let it lapse.
We have had our licenses for about 8 years and originally purchased a suite that had Board/Blog/Gallery but did have to purchase Downloads, Nexus, Content etc all separately. I don't think everything was ever available as a single suite. Having said that I would agree that while the software itself is priced appropriately some of the pricing for the ongoing renewals is a little high .... In my regular job I tend to find renewal fees are quoted to us that are in the region of 20% of the cost of buying a new license so that would put IPS a significant bit above that for Board, Nexus and Content and more or less in line with that number for Blog, Gallery and Downloads. I deal with more than 500 software providers over the course of a year so its not a small sample .....
37 days since this thread was started without a sniff of any official comment or response on what seems to be a fairly simple question. Poor show IPS. Can we please have an answer? even a one word answer !!! It seems to be important to many of us and ignoring the polite requests for this info is, quite frankly, both rude and ignorant. If its not coming back then just say so ... if it is but there are challenges then perhaps give us a clue rather than leaving us hanging. I have stuck with content/pages from the moment it was released a few years back despite the ongoing lack of documentation or the lack of user friendliness for my less tech savvy editors almost entirely because I could get some of them to use the promote button and then do some basic editing to fix the issues the purifier caused during conversion .... its not perfect, but it is workable. if that feature is now gone then please just say so so we can move on and use something like Wordpress for our article area which is far more intuitive for those technophobe content editors .....
not sure if this is relevant to all people with this problem but I also got the same error on upgrade (at the applications stage). After that I searched here and read this thread and a couple of others then noticed that pages (which I had also installed) had upgraded its beta. I downloaded that file and uploaded it via ftp to my dev site then tried again and it resolved the installation issue but now gives me a white page on the front end This seems to be the error in the log (repeated many times) [02-Dec-2014 20:05:05 UTC] PHP Fatal error: Cannot use object of type IPS\Db\Select as array in /home/xxxxxx/public_html/xxxxx/system/Theme/Theme.php(558) : eval()'d code on line 1719 putting pages offline or uninstalling it has no effect
Reading this thread, it seems options are the key.
For me, a rigid structure I can define to suit my site works best, for others, a social media structure where new stuff, tied to specific users that floats to the top and can be displayed as such seems to work.
The option to choose slider(s) and to show certain info on sidebars also will vary from user to user
Will be interested to see a beta once it gets to that stage as I know the current version just does not do it for me ..... The pics are fine, just getting to the right ones can be a challenge !!!
Personally I would like the option of displaying the gallery in a hierarchical structure just like a forum ..... My gallery site is soccer related and the structure is related to game dates. Our top levels are years - 2012, 2011, 2010 etc with sub galleries within each parent category for each individual game in reverse chronological order. for me it is vital for that order to stay the same regardless of whether someone uploads to the latest album or to an older one.
I have no issue with how an individual sub-gallery is displayed right now, but managing each one within ACP right now is a pain as it wants the order to be by last uploaded date and I have to rearrange order in ACP every time I add a new global album.
Probably not explaining it well and no screenshots as I am using mobile app but tfcpics.com is the site if anyone wants to see what I am trying to achieve. 6 parent galleries, 150+ sub galleries, 9000+ images .....
In this instance people expect to be able to find gallery by year/date, not just by latest upload.
I am in Canada, my site is hosted in USA, and my audience is global although the subject matter and therefore the majority of the userbase is from Scotland (a fans forum for a football team).
I was unaware of the new law until recently and agree with most who have said that like many EU laws which seem to be formulated after a few bottles of Chablis, it is ill thought out and as silly as some of the most famous ones - like the curve degree on a banana which is a classic!!!
However, it is the law, and even if it not likely to be enforced rigorously, or even at all in some countries, I am trying to pay it at least lip service.
So here is what I have done, or what I am doing .....
I looked at the official UK gov site for the law and it is as clear as mud! No real help. I then looked at some major UK sites like BBC for example to see what they did (extensive info on a cookie page but no popup or list), and finally I looked at a few smaller sites like local newspapers from the area in the UK that I am from (it had popup/banner announcement and list on a dedicated cookie page).
As a result I will likely just add a cookie page like BBC and maybe add a field to registration to agree acceptance for UK/EU users.
The info I have read has stated the gov will not come hunting sites and if they find a site in breach they will likely suggest how to be compliant and only flex muscle if you continue to ignore it after they have spoken to you.
I do not expect IPB to list all cookies for me, it's not practical, and if they do this for UK/EU for this law where do they stop? A list of all potential USA federal or state issues with software compliance? Chinese laws? Laws from Australia/NZ ?
For the cookie issue i can easily get a list by clearing existing ones and then revisiting site and seeing what is in there as I perform major actions on site.... It's just a case of listing them on a cookie page after that (or not, if I base my page in what the BBC have done).
So what IS practical to ask from IPB (or the community at large) ?
Firstly it would be good if there was an informal list of the current core cookie names and what they do ... This could be supplied by IPB or as part of a peer discussion like this. On first entering my site I note 'coppa', 'nextlast', and 'session_id' as session cookies and 'member_id', 'pass_hash', and 'rtestatus' as persistent cookies. I have not yet noted others as I believe much of the preferences and individual user preferences are taken from the stored profile referenced in the member_id cookie?
That to Me would be the limit of what IPB could or should consider doing. Give us the tools to comply with local rules/laws etc, but leave the onus on us to use them !!
A calendar event that doesnt require you to specify an end date would be another basic requirement.
One of our sites has a separate (i.e. not the default) calendar for a soccer team and I want to enter player birthdays, fixtures, events etc.
The default calendar handles it fine if the member enters their birthday in their profile but if you try to create the same kind of entry for a non-member, it asks for an end date (year). Not sure i want to add what seems to be equivalent to a date of birth and a date of death!!!!!
How about examples ..... and before anyone accuses me of spamming or promoting my site, please be sure I am not doing that ... its a perfect example I think of a complete gallery solution (that is hard to integrate) but works well against the IPB product which integrates easily but doesn't work well ... In this case a picture .... or a series of them, truly speaks a thousand words !!!
look here for IPB Gallery (dev site): http://staging.tfcpi...x.php?/gallery/
look here for a Coppermine version of the same (live site): http://www.tfcpics.c...llery/index.php
The Coppermine gallery used to be integrated with the joomla portion of the site and we recently un-integrated it so we could convert the galleries and images to IP.Gallery and the Joomla portion to ip.content. Converting it over to IP.Gallery feels more like a disintegration (as in broken) of the gallery than a re-integration, especially as it converted what would be the equivalent of global albums to member albums and I cannot easily change them back (if at all), and because they are member albums instead of global, I cannot put them in a custom order that sticks, they will be sorted alphabetically or by date of last upload or any manner of other sorting, but not 'custom'. What is doubly frustrating is that the conversion process did it randomly (or so it seems) so the actual order in the various categories is all out of whack.
Our gallery is dedicated to photos from football (soccer) matches, and these matches all take place on specific days. I dont want games from week01 suddenly moving above week20 because someone loaded up a picture .... If they were global albums, I could do that, but not to member albums. I either need to be able to do that custom order with member albums, or find a way to cleanly convert those member albums to global albums. I did submit a ticket, but it seems there is no definitive answer other than going in, rooting around in the gallery tables in MySQL and hoping for the best ...... With 9000 images in 200 albums, thats probably not gonna happen !!!!!
I also support the other comments users have made about the mess of member albums ..... its a cluster**** of A1 proportions
What seems really incredulous to me is that despite IPB making the best forum software out there, which is structured logically and allows the admins granular control over sometimes the most miniscule portions of the site, it is the Coppermine gallery which blows it away with simple things like logical control and display and most importantly .... making it as easy to navigate as a forum ....
navigate both of the galleries linked to above (bearing in mind the Coppermine one has been somewhat crippled during our conversion) and tell me the IP.Gallery is an acceptable product ?
My users are forum users .... they know how to navigate a forum, they are comfortable with navigating a forum, they know how to add topics to a forum, and how to add a post inside those topics ... surely the gallery should have the same logic for users AND the same level of granular control for admins via the ACP .....
I would like to create a root album container (just like a forum [or a forum category]) ... in my case years from 2007 onwards. I would like to be able to order the whatever way I like. With current gallery, this is indeed possible.
Inside that I would like a gallery for every game played that year (just like a forum topic) ... and inside each of those galleries (albums) I would like users to be able to upload images (just like a post in a forum topic). I can kinda get there right now, sort of, if I dont worry about certain things, but the lack of being able to lay it out logically and make it do some of the stuff I have highlighted above just makes t feel like an unloved and incomplete product .....