When changing content type xmlsitemap priority default, all old nodes of that content type configured with old priority default value are assigned new default value. Only old nodes assigned a priority different than default remain with same priority after the change. Same for inclusion/exclusion.

Probably this is the way you planned this because in priority and on inclusion/exclusion configuration forms a default option is available besides the ones for each select component. (default, 1.0, 0.9, 0.8, ... for priority; default(included), included, excluded, for inclusion/exclusion).

If that is correct I think it should be documented. Maybe someone thinks old nodes would remain with their old priority and inclusion values and that only new nodes created after changing a content type priority would be asigned the new default value.

I hope can be understand what I mean. I think I'm not able to express it too correctly.

Comments

manfer’s picture

Component: Code » Documentation
dave reid’s picture

Category: support » task

Yep, this is one of the things I've worked so hard in the module's architecture to accomplish. You'll probably find more things like this that need to be documented, but I'm not sure how this should be documented. Maybe we should add a line of text in the node type interface that says "Changing these settings will change any that have either inclusion or priority set to default." Any suggestions?

manfer’s picture

Something like that would be useful in node type interface.

And maybe in the node interface xmlsitemap fieldset would be useful too. "If inclusion or priority are set to default its values will change if default inclusion, priority values of this node type are changed later". Probably you'll find a better way to express it.

dave reid’s picture

Added a message on the type settings form that says "Changing these type settings will affect any items of this type that have either inclusion or priority set to default."

gobinathm’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
Status: Active » Closed (outdated)

As D6 is in EOL, I believe there won't be any support / fix for a problem identified in 6x going forward. Given the fact that D6 is already EOL. Hence i guess this issue can be closed.

Changing the status, if incorrect pls revert the status.