Press Ctrl / CMD + C to copy this to your clipboard.
This post will be reported to the moderators as potential spam to be looked at
I have a frustrating problem where the inherited properties from my Base doctype are appearing below the ones definied on the child doctype. Even manually changing the sortOrder property in the cmsPropertyType DB table does not resolve the issue. Incredibly annoying - anyone else noticed this?
I am on Umbraco version 7.1.4 assembly: 1.0.5261.28127 with a SQL server CE database. It was upgraded from a v6 install via Nuget. Not getting any console errors or anything relevant in the trace log.
Any ideas or suggestions? Its annoying the hell out of me!
NB Just did some testing on a fresh install and it does not exhibit the same issue (using the default starter kit doctypes). I am going to try to package up the site and migrate it to the fresh DB to see what happens..
Update: I cannot install my doctypes via a package on to my fresh site - I get the following YSOD:
The odd thing is that the install I am exporting the package from is a v7 site. Obviously there are still artifacts from the pre-upgrade v6 version of the site that are buggering things up. Looks like my only option is a ground-up rebuild and copy-paste job, unless anyone has any other suggestions?
Update: The solution was to create new document types from scratch where the property order was incorrect, and migrate data by hand. I tried editing the raw DB data for a while but to no avail. If you have a lot of data you could migrate the data via a WebAPI controller or similar.
Hi Barry, I had this with Umbraco - especially with the early versions of 6. It seems to be completely random and I have not been able to reproduce it.
IMHO inherited properties are more trouble than they are worth due to this risk (imagine having hundreds of document types on a large database with a complex inheritance structure!), and it is often better simply to duplicate the properties for all child objects.
It would be great if the doctype inheritance was given some TLC. Maybe it could be sorted with Matt B's idea of removing the tight coupling of trees with nodes (and sections) pull 465? Here's hoping!
is working on a reply...
Write your reply to:
Image will be uploaded when post is submitted