Dynamic Objects empty after Upgrade 
Autore: Dieter D.
Visite 1717,
Followers 1,
Condiviso 0
Hi!
I just upgraded a Project from 2021.2.8 to 2021.4.5
The project contains Dynamic Objects which were linked to a DB table. In the old version the Dyn Content was in one table.
After the upgrade all DynObj were reset to the default texts. In the DB I see now one table per object with only one line in. There is also a DynObj Table there with one line per DynObj holding the data that was in the DynObj before the upgrade.
When I edit a DynObj now the change is reflected in the DB table with only one line.
Looks like a bug in the upgrade routine :-(
Postato il
Hello. I sent a notification about your question to the company employees, expect an answer from them here in the comments.
Are you using your hosting or hosting from the program? Please give a link to the page with the object.
Autore
Hi Aleksej!
Thanks for the fast answer.
The page is https://eis-daniel.at and it is on a different hoster.
To make the problem clear I attach a pic of how the DB looks like now.
All the data for the 6 dynamic objects previously was in "Eis_DynData". Now I have these "w5_4c8ade62_xxxx" tables which were created obviosly with the upgrade.
When I edit an object the data gets filled into "w5_4c8ade62_0_xx_content".
The "w5_4c8ade62_7_06_content" has 6 rows holding the data before the upgrade.
It is a niche idea to say all the DB handling is now done automatically by X5 but in the older versions I was able to specify my own table prefixes ("Eis_" in this case) what is now gone and seems to cause update problems.
Thanks!
Dieter
That's true that INCO is now taking control of the database, but there are certain reasons for that. For example, there have always been problems when there were several dynamic objects on the pages and when the table names were the same. That's why for each object a new tableprafix is created automatically. The user does not need to do anything here.
Wieso schreibst du eigentlich im englischen Forum wenn du in Wien wohnst?
Autore
I agree, good if INCO is doing that!
I disagree with having for each DynObj an own table with just one record inside. If I have 100 DynObj I have 100 tables with one row each instead of just one table with 100 rows?? This is not very good practice at all.
If INCO is changing the DB stuff I would expect that converting from old versions this should work fine. In my case I was able to fix it by acessing the DB and retrieving the old data & put it to the newly created DynObj tables. A non tech user would have "lost" the contents...
Ich schreibe meist im englischen Forum, weil ich denke, dass die Posts somit für eine breitere Community nutzbar sind :-)
Hello Dieter
Yes I confirm that the Database is now going to be handled differently than the previous version in order to allow us to add more functionalities in a more swift way and improve the way the website handled data in general
However, I'm sorry to hear that the data wasn't copied automatically for you and you had to do it manually. The data should copy itself automatically. If it encountered any error when it attempted to do so, however, the procedure might have failed
I'm glad to hear that you were able to fix it by hand though. I will let the developers know this so that the situation can be kept under control
Thank you for your feedback
Stefano