November Happy Hour will be moved to Thursday December 5th.
November Happy Hour will be moved to Thursday December 5th.
Update:
I think the problem won't pop up if we have "Maximum number of old versions of a page" set to "unlimited".
Then even if the property is not updated properly it always points to existing work page.
But in my case (maximum nubers of version = 5) it is the problem.
The question is: why the work page id wasn't updated?
I assume that the correct behavior is:
when the page is being published the new version is created for the page and all included content functions (if these were edited). Apart from creating new versions the property storing pointers to content functions should also be updated (to point to new version of edited content functions).
Is my understanding wrong?
BR,
Dariusz
One case when this exception happens is when, by somehow, the ContentFunction page is deleted from database.
I've done some test on our environment and this only happens on Composer 3.2.5/CMS 5 R2SP1, it works fine on Composer 3.2.6/CMS 5 R2SP2. Could you consider upgrading option?
Hi,
I'm facing a problem with composer. After some time of using it I noticed the error mentioned in title.
I did the small research and what I see is that the composer tries to load the page version that doesn't exists.
For example let's suppose that the exact error message is:
Failed when loading function 6407_33933. The first part is the PageId while the second is the WorkPageId.
However, I don't see mentioned WorkPage for the given PageId in the database (tblWorkPage)
On the other hand the property storing information about content functions says:
<ca id="LeftArea"><cf index="0" guid="7716af5a-d9bf-44bc-a43e-630679f6a04c" pid="6407" wid="33933" remotesite=""><a href="~/link/7716af5ad9bf44bca43e630679f6a04c.ascx">74|Content|6407_33906</a></cf></ca>
That leads me to the following conclusion:
- for some reasons when the page was updated (new version published) the property wasn't properly updated to point to correct WorkPageId.
In other words the "33933" number wasn't updated to the existing one...
Has anybody noticed the similar behavior? I'd appreciate any help :)
Best regards,
Dariusz