./Themes/default/languages/index.english.php Test failed

[Palloy]

I am just doing my first SMF update,
2.0.7 to 2.0.8 worked OK
2.0.8 to 2.0.9 worked OK
2.0.9 to 2.0.10 uploaded OK, and then failed during the testing process pre-install:
*    2.    Execute Modification    ./Themes/default/languages/index.english.php    Test failed
      1.    Replace    ./Themes/default/languages/index.english.php    Test failed
      2.    Replace    ./Themes/default/languages/index.english.php    Test successful

All the other tests were successful.

I notice that 2.0.7+ needs PHP 5.5 and was running 5.4, so I updated PHP to 5.5
and tried 2.0.9 to 2.0.10 again, same fail.

It doesn't look all that serious, but then it says it is serious.

[Steve]

What is the actual fail? Is it looking for a version number and the one in your file is one off of the one it's looking for?

If so, you can go ahead and install the update and just make that change manually.

http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=536161.msg3809804#msg3809804

[Palloy]

Not sure what the fail is.
I have copy-pasted all I can see.
I don't understand the significance of
1.    Replace    ./Themes/default/languages/index.english.php    Test failed
2.    Replace    ./Themes/default/languages/index.english.php    Test successful

Does that mean it tried to check something twice and failed on the first time only?
In that case the overall result of the test should have been "successful", but it was "failed".

./smf/Themes/default/languages/index.php contains
<?php
// Version: 2.0.7; index

and

./smf/Themes/default/languages/index.php~ contains
<?php
// Version: 2.0.7; index

both files modified today.

I can do the automatic install and then FTP the /index.php if I can find the v2.0.10 version, but where?

[Kindred]

Read the FAQ/wiki article on what to do if a mod install shows errors...

[Palloy]

Ah I see, by clicking on the icon to the left of the error, it tells me what it was looking for - which was version 2.0.8.
Now I have just completed the update from 2.0.7 to 2.0.8, and 2.0.8 to 2.0.9 successfully, but 2.0.9 to 2.0.10 says it was expecting
./Themes/default/languages/index.english.php to be 2.0.8 and found it was 2.0.7 .

I'm assuming I can go ahead and do the installation, so long as afterwards I check that ./Themes/default/languages/index.english.php ends up v2.0.10.

Trying that.

Well the install proceeded OK, but the version is still 2.0.7

Detailled Version Check shows:
SMF File         Your Version    Current Version
SMF Package    SMF 2.0.10    SMF 2.0.10
Sources          2.0.8             2.0.10
Default Templates    2.0.10    2.0.10
Language Files    2.0.7            2.0.10

Expanding "Sources" there is only one in red:
Subs-Post.php     2.0.8      2.0.10

Expanding "Language Files" there is only one in red:
index.english.php  2.0.7   2.0.10

[Palloy]

So I downloaded the whole SMF 2.0.10 to my PC, extracted those two files, and FTP'd them, overwritings the old version,
and re-ran the Detailled Version Check, which said everything is now OK.

Those two file errors must have happened on the 2.0.7 to 2.0.8 update, without being reported.

Thanks for your help.

[Steve]

It was a known event which is why I linked to the post I did.

[Palloy]

Fair enough, I didn't read the link properly.   

But didn't whatever caused the problem in the first place get FIXED once it was found, so that other people didn't blunder into the "known event"?
I am taking over maintenance of a site that hasn't had any patches ever.  I've got another SMF on the site and that is still at version 2.0.3 .

[Steve]

The 'problem' doesn't affect everyone though. There's a thread here somewhere that explains exactly what's happening but it would take me forever to find it. Maybe one of the support team knows which one it is off the top of their heads.

[margarett]

The problem is with the version headers in each file.
index.template.php is a "known" issue, which we were able to trace back. Basically you did the right thing: install the patch and fix the version numbers.

The issue in Subs-Post.php is not expected and might indicate outdated code... Could you please attach that file?

[Palloy]

These are the two versions I have (attached).  I had to rename Subs-Post.php~ to old.Subs-Post.php to get Attach>Browse to pick it up.  They are 2.0.9 and 2.0.10, which is probably not very helpful, but things were apparently working at that point.

[Palloy]

Sorry, attached is 2.0.10

[Steve]

Just an FYI, the file with the ~ is just a backup file. You would normally attach the one without the tilde.

[Palloy]

Yes, but that one (2.0.9) was the current one at the time the patch failed.

I guess what would be more interesting is what I had at 2.0.7 to 2.0.8, but those are gone now.
I could probably dig 2.0.7 out of a backup if it is important.

[Kindred]

What?

You can't just randomly replace files...

[Palloy]

I didn't randomly do anything.
When the package version was 2.0.9, the version number in Subs-Post.php was 2.0.8.
When I tried the update to 2.0.10 it complained.
I went ahead anyway and afterwards did a File Version Check, and it reported Subs-Post.php as 2.0.8 not 2.0.10
I then FTP'd Subs-Post.php 2.0.10 overwriting 2.0.8, and File Version Check reported OK.

That may turn out to have been the wrong thing to do, but it must be better than having File Version Check reporting an error, surely?

[Kindred]

that is not what our instructions said to do....  and that is not the proper action.

The proper action would have been to manually CHANGE the one line that was causing the error.

[Palloy]

How could that possibly produce a different result from uploading the latest file from the 2.0.10 package?

[Kindred]

had you ever applied any mods to the previous versions?

If so, then you may have just removed some of the mod code

[Palloy]

I'm struggling to understand you.
Are you saying that there could be two version 2.0.10s of the same file, that are different, one arrived at by editing a previously moded version, and the other extracted from the 2.0.10 package?
I don't see how SMF could keep control of that, no, they can't be different.

I can see why editing the file would be the easiest way to achieve THE 2.0.10 file given the circumstances, but the other way must produce the same result too.