If a thread doesn't exist, the paging continues. Shouldn't it stay at page1 and not go onto a page with nothing in it? don't know if this is a bug or not, just reporting what I see.. Below is the post in question and then the screens. If someone posts in this thread it may screw up the possible bug find.
http://community.mybboard.net/thread-46551.html
A post was marked as unapproved or removed after you were on the thread page. A simple refresh would have gotten rid of page 2.
(2009-03-13, 12:42 AM)Imad Jomaa Wrote: [ -> ]A post was marked as unapproved or removed after you were on the thread page. A simple refresh would have gotten rid of page 2.
I tried this in 4 browsers and refreshed everyone plus cleared the caches before I reported this. Did You try this yourself? If you would of you would of seen your suggestion does not work.
Looks to be a bug, your decision however, good luck
I'm not sure what the problem is.. It appears fine for me. Like Imad said, a post was probably unapproved after you loaded the page.
Alright, I see the problem. Since I am a staff member here and their's an unapproved post, the pages work fine. I decided to log out and visit the thread, the page "2" appears but it takes you to an nonexistent thread error.
However, I am unable to reproduce this in the latest SVN revision.
You admit it's a bug, and because in the latest SVN it can't be reproduced it means this is bogus? I can also reproduce this on my forum. I hope I don't have to waste my time again by reporting this issue in the next version because someone wont list this as a bug. If it's confirmed here it should be put in bugs until it's corrected here at the live forum, otherwise, why report bugs imo.. Kinda silly way to work things
I hope the developers are looking at these posts being moved out of the bug reports section also.. imo only developers should be moving posts out of the Bug report area anyhow. Just my opinion..
(2009-03-13, 03:07 PM)hemi Wrote: [ -> ]You admit it's a bug, and because in the latest SVN it can't be reproduced it means this is bogus? I can also reproduce this on my forum. I hope I don't have to waste my time again by reporting this issue in the next version because someone wont list this as a bug. If it's confirmed here it should be put in bugs until it's corrected here at the live forum, otherwise, why report bugs imo.. Kinda silly way to work things
If I can't reproduce it in the latest SVN, that means the issue doesn't exist. The SVN version always becomes the latest release here. If I can't reproduce using it, their's nothing to fix.
I did check if this is a duplicate and I couldn't seem to find any.
He's saying he can get it to happen here, but not on the SVN, so it may have been fixed in the SVN already. If it's been fixed, it'd only be marked as duplicate. Of course you can reproduce it on your forum if it's still a bug in the 1.4.4 code, but it may have been fixed in the SVN, ergo Imad couldn't reproduce it on that. We don't fix bugs on these forums until the next release is made - we run what you run.
Edit: You're getting quicker at beating me now
Quote:If it's been fixed, it'd only be marked as duplicate.
This doesn't seem to be a duplicate as I have checked before (unless I can't seem to find it.
).
Quote:Edit: You're getting quicker at beating me now
The tables have turned.
(2009-03-13, 03:07 PM)hemi Wrote: [ -> ]If it's confirmed here it should be put in bugs until it's corrected here at the live forum,
No, we run the public version everyone else runs. We already have an extensive process for committing and confirming fixes in our SVN. It would be a mess to have to apply fixes here as we go along between releases.