Closed (outdated)
Project:
Conference
Version:
5.x-1.x-dev
Component:
Code
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Bug report
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
3 Aug 2007 at 20:12 UTC
Updated:
26 May 2019 at 20:39 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent
Comments
Comment #1
shane birley commentedI will do more testing and see if I can replicate. Let me know if you require any other information.
Comment #2
shane birley commentedDamn. I think this is because I forgot to update the conference permissions.
Comment #3
shane birley commentedI see the nid but it looks fine in all related tables (sequences, etc).
Comment #4
mfh commentedon one hand, I'm currently travelling and have very limited possibilities to do anything regarding this.
on the other hand, editing the content type by adding more fields while the conference module is already "active" is of course something quite unexpected and I'm not surprised this might lead to errors (although I would not assert that it MUST leas to an error and actually can't see at once why).
If we find out what exactly happened, maybe we should add a warning in the README file or in the help text, but once again, I probably won't be able to contribute to a solution until September.
(If the error is continuing to prevent you from using the module and it is urgent for you to fix it you might try to simply delete the problematic node.)
Maybe, as a future enhancement, we could add a "check and repair corrupt database" feature...
Comment #5
shane birley commentedIt may be an idea for something like a "rebuild broken permissions" or something like that. OR, it may be better solution that, if a content type is updated, the permissions are updated automatically or a note is displayed telling the user that they need to update immediately upon editing a content type.
I am going to rebuild the site and see if I can replicate the problem. It was very unexpected, especially, with it being a sequence issue (at least, it appears that way). I will update with any notable findings I get.
Comment #6
mfh commentedI agree that a "rebuild broken permissions" function would be a nice thing and if you have a suggestion for the code you're welcome.
However, supposing that "unexpected changes" as done in your case would not happen, would this trouble still occur?
Or can we change this issue to something else than an "active bug" ? (e.g. to a feature request ?)
Comment #7
shane birley commented