Advertisement:

Author Topic: upgrade 2.0.15 --> 2.0.16 fail  (Read 2263 times)

Offline Illori

  • Project Manager
  • SMF Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 52,250
Re: upgrade 2.0.15 --> 2.0.16 fail
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2020, 06:26:31 AM »
sorry we are not changing our policy, it has caused us major issues in the past. the patch once released will NOT be changed.

also the number of views on a specific topic have no relevance to how many need to use the assistance provided in that topic. a lot of spiders crawl this forum and that is where a lot of the hits come from. you cant say that 90 people have needed help from this topic without 90 people posting they actually did.

Offline Vince S

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 263
  • Gender: Male
  • Binary biker, 1 position
    • Hunter Ducati Owners Group Inc
Re: upgrade 2.0.15 --> 2.0.16 fail
« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2020, 06:39:20 AM »
Sorry, I am not meaning to be confrontive or something, or try to make silly / flaming style arguments; if it seems that way it is not intended.

In essence, I suspect but don't know that there are tens of thousands of users affected by this issue and maybe a few of them (like 90) may have found a solution. The other still tens of thousands are ignorant of the fact they even have a problem.

I personally did not know of the 2.0.16 udpate. I am pretty sure I usually get an email for any update but none came, or something happened. Same for 2.0.17, no notice. Maybe it has an outdated email from the old DNS so it is just me? But the point is I had our forum on 2.0.15 in blissful ignorance, just stumbled across this fact when doing something else. Do the upgrade, get the fail, come here and search and there is the identical error, so I fixed it.

Then realised this is a way bigger issue than it first seemed as all existing users are locked out, in effect.

You would never design in a bug to create that outcome. How there is any concept that this fatal flaw could be left as is defies any logical assessment. So how about we deal with content rather than resort to dogma? Thank you.
Try figuring out where all this is going to keep coming from: Millionaire Baby? Or just pass me a beer and we'll sort it, thank you.....

Offline Illori

  • Project Manager
  • SMF Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 52,250
Re: upgrade 2.0.15 --> 2.0.16 fail
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2020, 08:28:26 AM »
we have not sent out the newsletter due to a bug in our servers here. hopefully that will be resolved soon.

Offline alkisg

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: upgrade 2.0.15 --> 2.0.16 fail
« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2020, 05:50:56 AM »
Thanks for that input - helpful.  Not sure we can do anything about it as the patch is out in the wild already.

This happened to my (very old, with no mods) forum as well. Thank you all for the solution provided here.
I think it would be nice to make a remark of this issue/topic/solution in the release announcement message, so that users don't have to google to find the solution.

Offline Peter de la mare

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: upgrade 2.0.15 --> 2.0.16 fail
« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2020, 08:23:30 AM »
This was very helpful, thank you. 

Let's start with QE2... 

~Line 2688, your file has:
Code: [Select]
$sizes = @getimagesize($_FILES['attachment']['tmp_name']);

// No size, then it's probably not a valid pic.
if ($sizes === false)

Vanilla 2.0.15 has an odd quirk where a comment is repeated:
Code: [Select]
$sizes = @getimagesize($_FILES['attachment']['tmp_name']);

// No size, then it's probably not a valid pic.
// No size, then it's probably not a valid pic.
if ($sizes === false)

You want to match the 2.0.15 code for the search/replace to work.  I would make your version match 2.0.15 by repeating the comment & try again.

Looks like that duplicate comment bugged someone so they deleted it...  The 2.0.16 patch gets rid of it...

Offline otsian

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: upgrade 2.0.15 --> 2.0.16 fail
« Reply #25 on: March 26, 2020, 11:53:20 AM »
Well just my luck. I'm trying to catch up on the releases and am stuck here. I've change Profile_Modify.php to have the double comment, still fails the test.

I'm looking at the updates for Profile-Modify.php and am slightly confused. In reporting the package installation error, SMF lists

Replace - Test Successful
Add After - Test Successful
Replace - Test Successful
Add After - Test Successful
Add Before - Test Successful
Replace - Test Failed

When looking at the package code, it appears to have a different list of operations for the update. I must not be understanding how this operates. It shows:

Replace
Before
Replace
Before
After
Replace

It seems like those might align provided their they're referring to the code differently in each place, where one refers to the position of the original code and the other to where new code goes. Confuses me, but hey, me being confused isn't a new thing. :)

So anyway, I've reviewed each of the replace items, and they all appear to be identical. The last replace in either is certainly the double comment item.  I've deleted the 2.0.016 mod and re-downloaded it, and it's still failing the test.

Is there some other issue that can be at play here? Any guidance would be very welcome.


Offline otsian

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: upgrade 2.0.15 --> 2.0.16 fail
« Reply #26 on: March 27, 2020, 09:14:51 AM »
Well, I went and did the update, and manually did the last replace it skipped afterwards. The update itself said it was successful, which seems like it shouldn't have said that since it clearly didn't do that last replace section. Poking through the other replaces, they appeared to have been performed fine.

Then I went ahead and did the update to .17 as well, which ran fine.

I wish I understood why it wasn't finding that last replace. It appeared identical to what it was searching for. Oh well. I guess I'm past this issue.