Cumulus Support

Have notice this since I upgraded from 3107 to Current last week; Pic help explain.

Prior to upgrading, I had *T.htm files & mostly *.htm files present in my Web Directory.
Since the upgrade I notice this:-
Notice thismonth.htm etc is dated @ the last process before I upgraded & thismonth.htmtmp is stamped with the most recent process time.

Would it be neater & more appropriate it the *.htmtmp files were deleted & replaced with the *.htm files?

Would make for a cleaner look Web folder with the uploaded files having a more appropriate extension for file association in editors.

Only a minor matter, but seems a bit contradictory.
(Or maybe that's just a pet hate of mine; Temp files being left behind).

Hi,
This is likely effective from v3.10.0-b3115 that changed the way the new default website is updated. There are steps to be followed if you wish to continue with the prior legacy web files.
See the Updates.txt file included with the download and look at 3.10.0 - b3115
Also Wiki https://cumuluswiki.org/a/New_Default_W ... nformation

Enjoy,
Paul

Hi Paul,

Yes I am aware of those changes; It's why I got so far out of date.
Currently I am using my old legacy templates, with them all in ExtraWebfiles.

I do also have the New & the updated legacy file on my site also at:-

http://weather.inverellit.com/new/index.htm & http://weather.inverellit.com/legacy/index.htm

More a question of why the destination files are not created the same way as in the past; as oppesed to files ending in TMP.

I realize it's probably to do with FtpRename, although turning that on & off seem to not change the behavior.

I notice also that there are not *tmp files for standard files processed outside the "Extra's" list.

IE It's as if the FTP routine for the Standard files operates slightly different to the routine for the Extra Webfiles.

Phil.

Phil23 wrote: ↑Thu 03 Jun 2021 1:46 am Notice thismonth.htm etc is dated @ the last process before I upgraded & thismonth.htmtmp is stamped with the most recent process time.

Would it be neater & more appropriate it the *.htmtmp files were deleted & replaced with the *.htm files?

Would make for a cleaner look Web folder with the uploaded files having a more appropriate extension for file association in editors.

Installing a new release by copying it over an old one will leave old files in sub-folders like "web" that are no longer relevant. MX cannot know what release (if any) you had before and so does not look for obsolete files.

Paul has explained differences within release for old and new, and how the release announcements (and update.txt) explained this.

As for *.htmtmp files, please see viewtopic.php?p=95436#p95436, or other posts in that thread, for further explanation.

Phil23 wrote: ↑Thu 03 Jun 2021 5:49 am More a question of why the destination files are not created the same way as in the past; as opposed to files ending in TMP.

I realize it's probably to do with FtpRename, although turning that on & off seem to not change the behaviour.

I notice also that there are not *tmp files for standard files processed outside the "Extra's" list.

For the processing of such legacy files, and use of tmp suffix only on non-standard files, please see Mark's text and diagram at viewtopic.php?p=95437#p95437 (same thread as referenced for your earlier quote).

You have posted this in the Cumulus Wiki Suggestions for updates and additions sub-topic, so what change, and where, are you implying is needed in the Wiki?
An explanation of all this has been in the Wiki for 7 years, and is specifically linked from its main page. Actually, there are many, many, references to that all over this forum (prior to introduction of new default web site as introduced at 3.10.x), and all over the Wiki.

sfws wrote: ↑Thu 03 Jun 2021 8:07 am You have posted this in the Cumulus Wiki Suggestions for updates and additions sub-topic, so what change, and where, are you implying is needed in the Wiki?

No Changes in the Wiki, I simply posted in the wrong area.
Intent was to post it in:-
DevelopmentCumulus MX Development Suggestions (rejected / resolved)??

Obviously that is a crime that could be punishable...

sfws wrote: ↑Thu 03 Jun 2021 8:07 amAn explanation of all this has been in the Wiki for 7 years,

Do recall seeing that in the past now my memory's refreshed.
So I'll rephrase my (obviously ridiculous) question in a different way;

Is there a reason why "Extra Web Files" cannot be processed in the same way as "Standard Web Files"

Phil23 wrote: ↑Thu 03 Jun 2021 5:49 am It Would make for a cleaner look Web folder with the uploaded files having a more appropriate extension for file association in editors.

There may well be good reason as to why it is how it is, but as the diagram indicated there are the two alternate processing methods already in code,
And Do the Extra Web Files need to be treated differently?

Phil23 wrote: ↑Fri 04 Jun 2021 1:02 am There may well be good reason as to why it is how it is, but as the diagram indicated there are the two alternate processing methods already in code,
And Do the Extra Web Files need to be treated differently?

I think the reason for the difference is because Extra files are more flexible in their naming.

For the standard files the root filename is to same locally and remotely.

For extra files the remote file can have a completely different name from the local file.

The processed local file has to have a different name from the template file, hence the appending of the "tmp" text.

If the local processed file used the remote filename locally, then there may no obvious link between the two.

So two examples like this aren't feasible?
Not that it's at all a major issue; certainly nothing worthy of great debate & massive code changes.
More just a curiosity issue relating to the house keeping for me.

Thanks

Phil.

I don't really care either way. Yours produces nice file names, but breaks the link between template and processed. The current method has messier file names but there is an obvious link between template and processed.

If lots of people would like to see it changed then I'd do it, otherwise there are more important things to look at for now.

Maybe create a voting post to gauge support?

mcrossley wrote: ↑Mon 07 Jun 2021 8:48 am If lots of people would like to see it changed then I'd do it, otherwise there are more important things to look at for now.

Maybe just put it a position 999 on your list.

Agree it's barely minor & it's only when wearing the OCD hat that it pops into mind.

What I would like to see though is a feature that shakes me awake in the bed at 2:00am when it's pi$$!^& down rain & the car window is open....
Some sort of slapping mechanical hand????

Cheers

Phil.