Miva Merchant 10.00.x Bug Reports

[Rick Wilson]

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[jstinsch]

I wasn't sure if this was the best place to get help, but my company has been having issues ever since we updated to 10.03.01. We have had a large sum of customers who once they get to the shipping options page and click continue after they select their shipping speed, nothing happens. So they are just forever stuck at this page with nothing further even attempting to load. The IT department consists of just me and my manager and I have been trying to work with our customers to try and find out what is causing this, but we have not been able to find a rhyme or reason as to fix this issue. Has anyone else been having this problem?

[lesliekirk]

I wasn't sure if this was the best place to get help, but my company has been having issues ever since we updated to 10.03.01. We have had a large sum of customers who once they get to the shipping options page and click continue after they select their shipping speed, nothing happens. So they are just forever stuck at this page with nothing further even attempting to load. The IT department consists of just me and my manager and I have been trying to work with our customers to try and find out what is causing this, but we have not been able to find a rhyme or reason as to fix this issue. Has anyone else been having this problem?

Are you using any sort of Address Verification?

[[email protected]]

I didn't see this in the list of bugs, so I'll pile another one onto the Product Copy feature. The attribute template option "default" setting does not copy over.

Original product is using just attributes & options, no attribute template. Copied product attributes are correct, but we lose the selection for the default option and have to manually go and set it on each copy.

Miva Merchant 10.02.00
MivaScript Enginev5.36
Database APImysql

[William Davis]

Admin > Product > Product Code field should never permit illegal URI characters when product code is being used as part of URI (e.g.: blank spaces, number sign, etc.).

Example:

.../test- #12345.html

This is a nightmare to fix because unlike Product Code field, URI screen does check for errors so how does one correct can URI to perform a 301 redirect?

Update: Since my initial post, I've been advised that such a feature has been in existence for many years. I later came across on old post on the forums by me when on MM4.24c OpenUI, discussing the disabling of said feature in order to enable customers the ability use their email address as their users id as a workaround. I have enable this feature to avoid further problems in the future. Apologies for my confusion.

[Jim Cockerham]

When a customer tries to "Reorder" a product from a previous order on the ORDS screen, they will receive a Fatal Error if the product is no longer available or if the product code has changed. I don't know that this is really a bug, but it seem like there should be a more friendly error message.

[Ron Frigon]

When a customer tries to "Reorder" a product from a previous order on the ORDS screen, they will receive a Fatal Error if the product is no longer available or if the product code has changed. I don't know that this is really a bug, but it seem like there should be a more friendly error message.

I've run into this issue before as well. Simple fix is to just wrap the restore link in a conditional. A message could easily be added as well.

<mvt:if expr="l.settings:group:product:code"><a class="u-font-small u-color-green" href="&mvte:group:restore:link;">Reorder</a></mvt:if>