|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,940 Likes: 1
Former Developer
|
|
Former Developer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,940 Likes: 1 |
On upgrade from UBB classic 6.7 to Ubbt 7.1.1, Member #1's pms got pulled in. Now i assume that they were there in ubb classic and just got grabbed for whatever reason. I know this doesn't happen for 6.5 threads --> ubbt 7.1.1 why not just ignore member #1 (as far as pms) in the import? or am i missing something? :shrug: query that shows if member #1 has pms and who are the PM hoarders is: select count(*) as PMs,
t3.USER_DISPLAY_NAME
from ubbt_PRIVATE_MESSAGE_USERS as t1,
ubbt_PRIVATE_MESSAGE_TOPICS as t2,
ubbt_USERS as t3
where t1.TOPIC_ID = t2.TOPIC_ID
and t1.USER_ID = t3.USER_ID
group by t1.USER_ID having PMs>99
order by PMs desc reason i used 99, was to find users who had a lot of PMs, so i could run a PM prune routine and Member #1 showed up with 1409 total PMs! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,535 Likes: 150
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,535 Likes: 150 |
Well, in classic there was no guest user, so the first registered user is user#1.
In threads the guest user is user#1.
So, if importing from classic, user#1 is a valid user, so their PM's deserve to be imported.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,940 Likes: 1
Former Developer
|
|
Former Developer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,940 Likes: 1 |
imported to a member named **DO NOT DELETE**
gotcha.. so show me how that guest user logs in and gets their PMs then.
at the very least, if that is valid, then a new member number shoulda been generated to allow this 'member' to delete their PMs..
Right?
Last edited by Sirdude; 06/29/2007 10:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,535 Likes: 150
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,535 Likes: 150 |
Well, if it imported TO user #1 that is a bug; from classic it should start importing info +1 user id.
donotdelete is the threads guest user, all data FROM user ID1 in .c should have been imported to ID2 in .t7
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,940 Likes: 1
Former Developer
|
|
Former Developer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,940 Likes: 1 |
bingo... hence my post 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,535 Likes: 150
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,535 Likes: 150 |
Guess I missunderstood your wording on the issue .. Completely concourr that this is a bug with the importer... now I'm curious what pm's the donotdelete user has
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,940 Likes: 1
Former Developer
|
|
Former Developer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,940 Likes: 1 |
i'll run that query and include the POST_BODY stuff to see.. i shoulda done that before, actually
it actually came up with 5441 posts, which was to be expected as PMs are now really a thread.
dates show they are from 2 yrs ago.. and i have no clue which flavor of UBB classic was used at that time.
regardless, i just pruned the pm topics and their posts out where it involved user 1 for now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,097 Likes: 1
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,097 Likes: 1 |
Well myself and another Mod have the most PM at 68 each. Most have 10 or less. Lost of posts, but few PMs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 196
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 196 |
I wrote the importer, and it's not a bug, so I think we shouldn't go throwing that around. All private messages correspond to a user. If a user got deleted, his private messages still existed because the other user probably didn't delete. These private messages had to get associated with someone, so they got associated with User #1. Unless User #1 in classic deleted, none of those private messages you said belonged to him actually did. All of his private messages got associated with Member #2, just as every other member's private messages got correctly associated.
It was either this or prune ever private topic that involved a deleted user, and many more people would have complained about that
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,535 Likes: 150
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,535 Likes: 150 |
Ian just had a classical CC "It's not a friggen bug already" moment...
The issue at hand is that there are lingering PM's which shouldn't belong; as they're not associated with a user they're just taking up space; that's what we're saying is the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 196
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 196 |
But that's also wrong. The PMs belong to a private topic. How would you like to have a 500 message long private topic in classic that you saved for reference, and the other guy deleted. Is his information any less valid? Should I have just deleted half of your topic, possibly costing you vary important information?
I designed the importer to import anything the user could possibly want. I did not design it to destroy information based on a single person's personal preference.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,535 Likes: 150
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,535 Likes: 150 |
Ian, if you're going to cop an attitude for me trying to say that there should be an easy way for someone to purge data that doesn't belong to a valid user, you can just go take a nap and respond like a big boy in the morning; else I don't want to hear your menacing comments.
If you feel you can't talk like an adult, don't bother talking.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 196
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 196 |
My point is that it's an importer. It imports. It's not the job of an importer to purge data, and it shouldn't be expected to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,940 Likes: 1
Former Developer
|
|
Former Developer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,940 Likes: 1 |
nor should it create or preserve orphans, which is the case i'm talking about. i get what you are saying and it makes sense that you would preserve the content (their side of the convo) for users that participated in a convo with someone that no longer exists, but one case (or cases) slips through. whether it be the importer or wherever, it really doesn't matter to me. matter of fact i didn't put this in the 'bug' forum yet. genuine orphans are created in a rare case, where a private message topic is created that only member #1 (if he could login) would see in his viewmessages. other members who might at some time been part of a back/forth with this member (#1 or #x - deleted member), but they deleted their half of the convo won't see in their inbox their half of the convo. i hardwired viewmessages to member #1 to see and i get a list of all the topics that he/it could supposedly have, where no one else is participating in. so those posts are essentially orphaned and serve no purpose to the new board. to be fair, the number is very low (20 or so out of 50,000 PMs imported), but they are genuine orphans. my original count query was flawed and didn't take into account that you save content on both sides of the convo and that member #1 IS indeed valid in order to preserve their content. i also assume that somewhere in the viewmessage part of things, that the board disables the 'reply to' feature, if you'd be replying to member #1. or i'd hope that be the case in any event, i just pruned those orphans for now. fyi screenie (viewmessages.inc.php as user#1): ![[Linked Image from sirdude.com]](http://sirdude.com/screenies/pm-orphans.jpg) ps: my guess is that those PMs were generated by quickie signups that then spammed with adverts on the old board. the admin deleted them, but their legacy remained. classic_import.php, dorebuildpms() could handle the orphan purge
|
|
|
|
3 members (BellaOnline, Gizmo, 1 invisible),
199
guests, and
123
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
