Thanks for including so much detail with your post; really helps.

Interestingly, I have Formulate (version 3.2.1, which is a bit outdated) working on an Umbraco 8.11.1 site, and I'm using LiveAppData as the ModelsBuilder mode:

<add key="Umbraco.ModelsBuilder.Enable" value="true" />
<add key="Umbraco.ModelsBuilder.ModelsMode" value="LiveAppData" />
<add key="Umbraco.ModelsBuilder.ModelsNamespace" value="MyWebsite.Application.Models.PublishedContentModels" />
<add key="Umbraco.ModelsBuilder.ModelsDirectory" value="~/../Application/Models/PublishedContentModels/GeneratedCode" />
<add key="Umbraco.ModelsBuilder.AcceptUnsafeModelsDirectory" value="true" />

The type in my case is also set to be an object for the generated property:

///<summary>
/// Form
///</summary>
[global::System.CodeDom.Compiler.GeneratedCodeAttribute("Umbraco.ModelsBuilder", "8.1.6")]
[ImplementPropertyType("form")]
public object Form => this.Value("form");

Note that in my case we're using Block List as the property type for widgets, but block list uses doctypes for each widget, so it should be pretty similar to putting a property directly on a doctype for a page.

Here you can see the doctype I have configured for my widget:

I'll try upgrading my install of Formulate to the latest version and try to replicate the issue. Here are some other things to check on:

• Be sure you've actually chosen the form. When choosing a form, you really choose a form configuration, which is an object that exists in the tree underneath the form.
• Be sure you have the form/form configuration/layout/template all properly chosen.
• Check if you have any extra plugins installed (especially any plugins that have custom property value converters).

BTW, how did you check the backend to see what Umbraco believed was stored against the field? Perhaps I can check what is stored on my end as well to see if it looks similar.

I've just upgraded to Formulate 3.5.0 (the latest version) and still haven't been able to reproduce the issue. It's a strange one for sure. Can you try switching back to LiveAppData and see if the issue still exists?

I may have one clue. Here's how the form property is stored for me, according to the cmsContentNu table:

"form": "{\r\n  \"id\": \"15719781b1a34bc9b7fc3dedb2973536\"\r\n}",

This differs from your example a bit. For examples, your example has an array and a "v" key, while my example does not.

Here the property is within the broader widget context:

{
  "layout": {
    "Umbraco.BlockList": [
      {
        "contentUdi": "umb://element/1f94ca32b3af4bbe93cd418482e1213a",
        "settingsUdi": "umb://element/3220dfe4729448168d457a087ecfed26"
      }
    ]
  },
  "contentData": [
    {
      "contentTypeKey": "42cda343-7560-4e3f-8df9-f83c50399dc1",
      "udi": "umb://element/1f94ca32b3af4bbe93cd418482e1213a",
      "header": "<p>Some Header Here</p>",
      "form": "{\r\n  \"id\": \"15719781b1a34bc9b7fc3dedb2973536\"\r\n}",
      "successContent": "{\"layout\":{\"Umbraco.BlockList\":[{\"contentUdi\":\"umb://element/95145a7dac96475a94278f2950804bbe\",\"settingsUdi\":\"umb://element/73c843f89c134da88bd7afa58a9fed4d\"}]},\"contentData\":[{\"contentTypeKey\":\"3df89656-2b6f-4e0a-a441-51b58d48d7ae\",\"udi\":\"umb://element/95145a7dac96475a94278f2950804bbe\",\"richText\":\"<p>Yay! It worked!</p>\"}],\"settingsData\":[{\"contentTypeKey\":\"82891286-2e68-4471-b3a6-5f5e6bef2787\",\"udi\":\"umb://element/73c843f89c134da88bd7afa58a9fed4d\",\"isDisabled\":\"0\"}]}",
      "failureContent": "{\"layout\":{\"Umbraco.BlockList\":[{\"contentUdi\":\"umb://element/247cf39d62c34319a498f4647ba78f00\",\"settingsUdi\":\"umb://element/19771474d5584797b362f23ccf1594ec\"}]},\"contentData\":[{\"contentTypeKey\":\"3df89656-2b6f-4e0a-a441-51b58d48d7ae\",\"udi\":\"umb://element/247cf39d62c34319a498f4647ba78f00\",\"richText\":\"<p>Darn! It failed!</p>\"}],\"settingsData\":[{\"contentTypeKey\":\"82891286-2e68-4471-b3a6-5f5e6bef2787\",\"udi\":\"umb://element/19771474d5584797b362f23ccf1594ec\",\"isDisabled\":\"0\"}]}"
    }
  ],
  "settingsData": [
    {
      "contentTypeKey": "a22f4c3f-a163-4371-929f-bb05c4ced1dc",
      "udi": "umb://element/3220dfe4729448168d457a087ecfed26",
      "isDisabled": "0",
      "label": ""
    }
  ]
}

There is an even broader page context, but I stripped that out since it didn't seem important.

One thought I just had is that the Umbraco variants feature may have some impact on this. My guess is that's why you have a "v" property in your data. Not really sure, but thought I'd mention it just in case it's of use.

Hi Nicholas,

Thanks so much for the response - sorry I've not replied sooner - work commitments :|

I'll take a look this weekend and get back to you once I've done some tests. Thanks again, it's much appreciated,

Tony

Hi Nicholas,

Finally had time to look at this again. I noticed I was missing the Umbraco.ModelsBuilder.ModelsDirectory in the web.config file - which to be honest I didn't think would matter.

Regardless I popped it in, rebuilt and generated the models as well as switched back to LiveAppData mode, and it seems to be working now.

Very odd, as the data in cmsContentNu is still the same:

"contactForm":[{"v":"{\r\n  \"id\": \"6aec1f9220974920a474959e714c0832\"\r\n}"}]

It's looking much better now - it's certainly rendering the form properly!

Now onto customising the styles :)

Thanks again, Tony

is working on a reply...