User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:
Pull Request for Issue #37806.
This PR fixes a small typo in the code cause web cron key not being generated when Web Cron enabled
Please note that I have zero experience with web cron feature, just try to fix this issue by reading the code quickly.
Status | New | ⇒ | Pending |
Category | ⇒ | Front End Plugins |
Labels |
Added:
?
|
@brianteeman I don't have any clue about it because I haven't looked at the code of schedule tasks feature before. From what I see (by just code reading), $table->name
will return name of the component stored in #__extensions table . By looking at the table, it is com_scheduler, so compare it with COM_SCHEDULER is wrong and that's the reason the code below that is not executed. So I just fix this small typo here, tested and it solved the issue.
I have tested this item
Tested successfully in Joommla 4.1.4-rc2-dev of 23 May in Wampserver 3.2.8 using PHP 8.0.15
Just did a quick test on an existing 4.1.3 site where the webcron key is not generated. I applied the patch from here. No change. Still cant generate the key. my mistake
Hmm. The patch worked for me for both 4.1 and 4.2, but for my local site, it is a new installation, not updating from old version of Joomla.
@brianteeman Could you please changed that line of code to the code below, then test it again to see if it works?
if ($context !== 'com_config.component' || strtolower($table->name) !== 'com_scheduler')
I have tested this item
Status | Pending | ⇒ | Ready to Commit |
RTC. Thanks all !
Strange that this is the fix as the code has always been this way and it obviously worked previously. I wonder what changed (elsewhere) to break this. Whatever it was, if it broke this then we should treat that as a red flag that it could have broken code elsewhere.
@brianteeman It broke with your PR #37387
Status | Ready to Commit | ⇒ | Fixed in Code Base |
Closed_Date | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | ⇒ | 2022-06-05 22:14:03 |
Closed_By | ⇒ | bembelimen | |
Labels |
Added:
?
|
Thx
confirmed, it works! Thank you!
Strange that this is the fix as the code has always been this way and it obviously worked previously. I wonder what changed (elsewhere) to break this. Whatever it was, if it broke this then we should treat that as a red flag that it could have broken code elsewhere.