Front End blank page after CMSMS 2.0.1.1 upgrade from 1.12

[jamaa]

After upgrading to 2.0.1.1 from 1.12, the front end turns up completely blank. After activating debug mode I got the following error message:

Code: Select all

Error: at line 176 in file /[...]/lib/smarty/sysplugins/smarty_internal_templatebase.php:

Invalid compiled template for 'tpl_body:14'

So I guess there is a problem with the main template which has the id 14. I read about the smarty->assign problem after upgrading, but that is not used in my template.

What do I look for in my template? Where do I start? The template is quite complex, it uses a couple of modules and there are some UDTs. It's been refined over the course of a couple of years, starting back from CMSMS 1.9.3 in 2011. How can I pinpoint the problem? Unfortunately I do not have access to the server error logs.

System information:

Code: Select all

----------------------------------------------

Cms Version: 2.0.1.1

Installed Modules:

    CMSMailer: 5.2.4
    FileManager: 1.5.1
    MenuManager: 1.50.1
    ModuleManager: 2.0
    News: 2.50.1
    Printing: 1.1.2
    Search: 1.50.1
    ThemeManager: 1.1.8
    TinyMCE: 3.0.0
    CGExtensions: 1.49.9
    FrontEndUsers: 1.30.5
    CGExtensions: 1.49.9
    FrontEndUsers: 1.30.5
    CustomContent: 1.10
    Uploads: 1.20.1
    FormBuilder: 0.8.1.2
    Gallery: 2.0.2
    SiteMapMadeSimple: 1.2.8
    Showtime: 3.4
    AdminSearch: 1.0
    MicroTiny: 2.0
    CGFeedMaker: 1.0.20
    CGSimpleSmarty: 2.0.2
    CMSContentManager: 1.0.1
    DesignManager: 1.0.1
    Navigator: 1.0.1


Config Information:

    php_memory_limit:
    max_upload_size: 128000000
    url_rewriting: mod_rewrite
    page_extension: .html
    query_var: page
    auto_alias_content: true
    locale: de_DE
    set_names: true
    timezone: Europe/Berlin
    permissive_smarty: false


Php Information:

    phpversion: 5.5.28
    md5_function: On (True)
    json_function: On (True)
    gd_version: 2
    tempnam_function: On (True)
    magic_quotes_runtime: Off (False)
    E_STRICT: 2048
    E_DEPRECATED: 8192
    test_file_timedifference:
    test_db_timedifference:
    memory_limit: 128M
    max_execution_time: 120
    output_buffering: 1
    file_uploads: On (True)
    post_max_size: 128M
    upload_max_filesize: 128M
    session_save_path: /tmp (1777)
    session_use_cookies: On (True)
    xml_function: On (True)
    xmlreader_class: On (True)


Performance Information:

    allow_browser_cache: Off (False)
    browser_cache_expiry: 60
    php_opcache: Off (False)
    smarty_cache: Off (False)
    smarty_compilecheck: Off (False)
    smarty_cache_udt: Off (False)
    auto_clear_cache_age: Off (False)

Server Information:

    Server Api: cgi-fcgi
    Server Db Type: MySQL (mysql)
    Server Db Version: 5.1.73
    Server Db Grants: Found a "GRANT ALL" statement that appears to be suitable
    Server Time Diff: No file system time difference found


----------------------------------------------

[Jo Morg]

A few notes:

• 1st - I hope you have a backup of both files and database;
• 2nd - You should never upgrade a live site without having tested on a clone of the site. Actually the best practice should be to clone the live site, upgrade the cloned site and after that, all working fine, move the clone site to the live one.
• 3rd - it appears that you have a few modules not yet up to date to work with CMSMS 2.x;

Having access to the server php error logs is a precious tool to debug whatever might be going on, however there is a poor man alternative:
- in config.php set $config['debug'] = 1;

Other that there is not much we can help with, given the information provided this far.

http://docs.cmsmadesimple.org/troubleshooting/tips

[jamaa]

thanks for the response.
1 - I do have backups
2 - This is a clone of the live site
3 - do you know which modules do not (yet) work with 2.x? Shouldn't any incompatibilities show up in the module manager?

I have set $config['debug'] to true, but that only seems to provide debug info in the backend.

Would a specific problem in the template even show up in the php error logs?

What other information would help you help me?

[Jo Morg]

1 - I do have backups
2 - This is a clone of the live site

Good!

3 - do you know which modules do not (yet) work with 2.x? Shouldn't any incompatibilities show up in the module manager?

Well there is no mechanism implemented that would allow for the Module Manager to differentiate modules. We have a filter in place at the forge but it depends largely on the developers to mark their modules/plugins with this tag. The same would be valid if Module Manager did handle a flag from the module. However it could never be managed nor endorsed by the Dev Team, as we cannot and will not be testing every module that claims to be CMSMS 2+ compatible. So the system works fine as is: search the Forge with the CMSMS-2 tag but knowing that there may be other modules that do work with CMSMS 2 and may not be flagged, and some of the already flagged modules may stop working for one reason or another. The tag CMSMS-2 is just a guideline, not a rule, nor a guaranty.

[jamaa]

Thanks for the info about the tags, I did not know about them. But I'm not looking for new modules, I just want to know whether the modules I have been using are compatible with the latest CMS version.
I've seen lines similar to the following one in modules:

Code: Select all

public function MinimumCMSVersion() {return '1.12'; }

Is that not standard for modules? If it is, the module manager could at least display it. And couldn't a similar function then be defined for the "maximum" or "recommended" CMS version?

Of course, that would only be an information provided by the module author and does not have to mean that it has been endorsed or tested by the Dev Team. But it would help a lot. I can't count the number of times I've tried to figure out which version of a module works with which CMSMS version. Making that information mandatory (or at least recommended) for modules and then displaying it in the module manager (or even the forge) would really make things easier. I'm sure I'm not the only one having trouble with this.

[calguy1000]

Is that not standard for modules? If it is, the module manager could at least display it. And couldn't a similar function then be defined for the "maximum" or "recommended" CMS version?

It is standard (but not required) for module authors to use this method. Before 2.0 there was also a MaximumCMSVersion() method but it was removed as we found that this method was just as problematic as the MinimumCMSVersion() method.

The frequency with which a module is maintained is a much more reliable procedure and everybody can watch that.

The module manager in 2.0 now warns of modules that are 'old'. (more than a year IIRC) and 'stale' (2 years IIRC). And will not display any module releases that are more than 3 or 4 years old.

[jamaa]

So, to summarize:
There is no easy way to find out whether a module is compatible with CMSMS 2, other than finding each module's page in the forge, checking whether it's tagged with CMSMS-2 and if not, going through the release notes of the last few releases of the module hoping that it is mentioned somehow.
If a module is not supported, I guess I have to uninstall it and also make sure that none of the templates call the module.
If I had an error message telling me what part of the template cannot be processed that would also help, but I'm not sure if that is even possible.
To be honest, I cannot justify the effort required to update to CMSMS 2 any longer. And assuming that the update to the next version will be similarly complicated, I'm going to give up. We've been operating two websites using CMSMS for a couple of years now, and the update hassle has always been tedious. This is in a professional environment, so the time spent upgrading has to be paid for. Perhaps we will switch to Wordpress, I've never had any major update problems with Wordpress on other sites, and by the way: each plugin actually tells you which Wordpress version is required and with which version it is compatible up to (according to the author, of course)! I strongly recommend you enforce this kind of information for modules. In my opinion it should be displayed on each module's page in the forge and the module manager should be able to access that information. Or am I the only one that uses more than a couple of CMSMS modules and has problems updating?
Sorry for the rant, I know everyone contributing to CMSMS is doing so voluntarily and they've done a great job overall, but the module ecosystem could really use some organizing. And while you're at it, you should also make sure that module authors use the provided svn-repository and if they do not want to, then switch the module's repository off! Many repositories are hopelessly out-of-sync with the file releases.

[Jo Morg]

Or am I the only one that uses more than a couple of CMSMS modules and has problems updating?

I don't really know if you are the only one but the number of downloads and upgrades done every day gives us a different panorama. I, and I'm sure others and not only on the Dev team, have to install and upgrade tens of sites, and have done these routines hundreds of times... Not always without issues, but for the most part, if we take some precautions, its a smooth process.

This is in a professional environment, so the time spent upgrading has to be paid for.

The same applies for most of us.

[otopanne]

the number of downloads and upgrades done every day gives us a different panorama

Really?

1.10.3 - 50.000 downloads
1.11.10 - 30.000 downloads
1.11.11 - 20.000 downloads
1.12 - 12.000 downloads
2.0.1.1 - 1.100 downloads

I pretty much see a huge decline in the userbase.


(yes, i have cherry picked some versions)

Don't get this the wrong way, I appreciate the effort some people (like yourself) have put into this product, but please don't try to fool us with these claims.
The number of people using this product is and has been in a decline for a while. A lot of them have named the upgrading procedure and poor module maintenance as a direct cause for their decision to use other cms's.

I'm still here though, as the other packages each have their own flaws. Nothing is perfect in the end

[Jo Morg]

I pretty much see a huge decline in the userbase.


(yes, i have cherry picked some versions)

Don't get this the wrong way, I appreciate the effort some people (like yourself) have put into this product, but please don't try to fool us with these claims.
The number of people using this product is and has been in a decline for a while. A lot of them have named the upgrading procedure and poor module maintenance as a direct cause for their decision to use other cms's.

Well you said it yourself, you cherry picked some versions... and I was not making a point about statistics, those numbers are hardly representative of the real use of CMSMS. However it kinda answers jamaa's original question... I'm not saying he is the only one "that uses more than a couple of CMSMS modules and has problems updating", but... compare that to the number of REAL issues and difficulties we have been witnessing and I was not trying to fool anyone...
We try to give as much support as possible, and reply to all valid bug reports, or issues that come up. But we need those reports to be well documented, and we have to require that people have researched and read the README files and other documentation we try to make available in advance. It is a waste of time to answer time and time again to the same questions, or even to find out that sometimes people didn't read the documentation, nor provided enough data for us to be able to have a clear picture of the issue (or even to be able to determine if it really is an issue).

Nothing is perfect in the end

Indeed nothing is...

[otopanne]

Well you said it yourself, you cherry picked some versions...

But you can't deny that there is a big drop in number of downloads.

and I was not making a point about statistics, those numbers are hardly representative of the real use of CMSMS.

How are the download statistics not a representation of the use of CMSMS?
All the people that 'use' it, but did not download it, got a copy on a usb in the mail??
How do you guys measure the 'real use' of CMSMS v2.0? And do you care to share?

However it kinda answers jamaa's original question...

How do the statistics I pointed out 'kinda answer jamaa's question'?

I'm not saying he is the only one "that uses more than a couple of CMSMS modules and has problems updating", but... compare that to the number of REAL issues and difficulties we have been witnessing and I was not trying to fool anyone...

Right, so all the posts about smarty global scope, blank pages after installation, template locks were not REAL issues?

I have the feeling, and the downloads statistics from this site kind of suggest, that not a lot of people have upgraded (yet).

We try to give as much support as possible, and reply to all valid bug reports, or issues that come up. But we need those reports to be well documented, and we have to require that people have researched and read the README files and other documentation we try to make available in advance. It is a waste of time to answer time and time again to the same questions, or even to find out that sometimes people didn't read the documentation, nor provided enough data for us to be able to have a clear picture of the issue (or even to be able to determine if it really is an issue).

Why did you paste this text in a topic where the OP has clearly read up on things, posts all relevant information and has explained his problem well?
Is it pointed at me because of one of my recent questions?

Nothing is perfect in the end

Indeed nothing is...

What are you trying to say? What's up with this ad hominem comments as soon as somebody shares a little critique...

[Jo Morg]

Jo Morg wrote:
Well you said it yourself, you cherry picked some versions...

But you can't deny that there is a big drop in number of downloads.

No I cannot it was not my intention, it is normal in any software when a new major version comes out, and as I said it was not my point either.

How are the download statistics not a representation of the use of CMSMS?

We don't have a way to count downloads and installations from other sources (as softaculous for instance and other packages). So not a representation, at least not imo.
Don't take it personally, it was just to say that not only CMSMS is not perfect the bug reports aren't perfect either.
As for the rest: It's there for the reading and I won't be over it again. The posts, bug reports and issues are there for who cares to read them, and take conclusions. This is my last post about this subject.

[otopanne]

But you can't deny that there is a big drop in number of downloads.

No I cannot it was not my intention, (...), and as I said it was not my point either.

We don't have a way to count downloads and installations from other sources

May I ask, what was your point when you wrote: "the number of downloads and upgrades done every day gives us a different panorama", if you can't deny the drop in number of downloads and it's not even possible to accurately measure the number of installed versions of CMSMS v2.0
What was your original statement/claim based on? A gut feeling?



Anyway, this discussion has been quitte off-topic and really doesn't help jamaa with his question/problem. I'm sorry for being the cause of that, Jamaa.

It might be little to late, but you could try to comment out all the smarty calls to non-core modules in your template and try to find the root of your problem that way.
After that, you could file a bug report for the module(s) in question and hope the developer is still around to update their module(s).

I would start with Showtime, as more people have reported -small- issues with that module and v2.0.

Not related, but it also appears that SitemapMadeSimple causes problems when submitting a content page.

What's a bit weird about your sys info, is that you seem to have installed CGExtensions & FrontEndUsers twice? (could be a copy-paste error, though)

[jamaa]

It is a waste of time to answer time and time again to the same questions, or even to find out that sometimes people didn't read the documentation, nor provided enough data for us to be able to have a clear picture of the issue (or even to be able to determine if it really is an issue).

Please, I believe I have read all the docs and have provided all the data I could. What did I overlook?

Anyway, this discussion has been quitte off-topic and really doesn't help jamaa with his question/problem. I'm sorry for being the cause of that, Jamaa.

No worries, I'm always happy when someone chimes in.

It might be little to late, but you could try to comment out all the smarty calls to non-core modules in your template and try to find the root of your problem that way.
After that, you could file a bug report for the module(s) in question and hope the developer is still around to update their module(s).

I would start with Showtime, as more people have reported -small- issues with that module and v2.0.

Not related, but it also appears that SitemapMadeSimple causes problems when submitting a content page.

This here is the help I was looking for! I really appreciate it. Will try it out tomorrow and report back.

What's a bit weird about your sys info, is that you seem to have installed CGExtensions & FrontEndUsers twice? (could be a copy-paste error, though)

That is weird, but I copy-pasted the whole block from the sys info, I'll check whether it's displayed like that in the backend.

[Jo Morg]

Please, I believe I have read all the docs and have provided all the data I could. What did I overlook?

I believe you did read them. However people (myself included sometimes) tend to skip sections or paragraphs of the documents. We have warned that not all updates would be cleanly accomplished, mainly because a vast majority of the modules weren't upgraded yet to work with CMSMS 2.x. It happens, even I didn't have time to update all the modules where I'm a developer or part of a team.
Also, one of the most important tools for debugging is the PHP errors log. Most of the time it allows the developer to pinpoint the problem in a few minutes. Without it, even pasting the system info, may not be enough. And we make it that clear on the docs site. Also the template of the page that breaks could be helpful as well as the source html that was rendered, if any.
Trust me: it's better more than less. And the system info you pasted, being already helpful, is not enough. Stating that "the template is complex", is not helpful; stating that "it uses a couple of modules and there are some UDTs" is not helpful. Not easy to help you with that kind of data. It becomes guess work.

Unfortunately I do not have access to the server error logs.

Excuse me for asking, but why not? It's a relatively simple thing to setup or ask from a host and such an important tool, that I would move to a different host if I couldn't have access to them a all on my current host.