Possible bug: Publish doesn't work properly (maybe only for UK users)

This may not be a bug but I think it is. I’ve had it since version 0.9.x and it is still in 1.0.3.

Symptom: page gets set to unpublished when it should be published

To reproduce:
- duplicate an existing published page
- edit as required
- go to Settings tab and check the "published" box
- click the "Publish Date" and click the current day, which should add today’s date and time into the box.
- Save

On my system this results in the Publish Date being saved but the page is set to Unpublished. Re-editing and checking "published" does not fix it.

Workaround: change the time to one hour in the past, check the "published" box again and Save. This fixes the problem.

Theory: I’ve experienced this on two different servers, but both in the UK. I’m thinking it may be a daylight savings issue, with MODx thinking the publish date is in the future, so it doesn’t publish. Setting the time back one minute doesn’t fix it, you have to do at least a whole hour.

So, bug or not?

Cheers,

/\dam

On a somewhat related note, if you click "published" but don’t add a "Publish Date" then the page gets published but "Publish Date" doesn’t get set. This is a problem if, like me, you use Ditto to order by published date rather than created date.

Again, I’m not entirely certain this is a bug, but in my opinion Publish Date should get populated with a default value of the current timestamp.

Cheers,

/\dam

There are two separate fields: pub_date (which controls future publication) and publishedon, which records when the doc last changed from unpublished to published.

The publish date shown in the form is intended only for future publications. I think if you leave it blank, the problem will go away. The publishedon field should get set automatically whenever a new, published, document is created, or whenever the status of the doc changes from unpublished to published (whether that happens manually or automatically).

At any time, [*createdon*] will display when the document was created. [*publishedon*] will display when it last changed from unpublished to published.

Hope that makes sense.

BTW, the Published On field does show in the Manager in Revolution and you can edit it there. It might be possible to expose it with ManagerManager in Evo, I haven’t tried.

Thanks Bob, that could be a workaround for some people.

Unfortunately, I don’t think it helps me, as I do have to use pub_date for several sites. This is because some articles need to be published in the future, and some need to be reordered into the past. So, I need to order my Ditto output by pub_date, which if it is not set gets output as Jan 1st 1970.

To address this issue my personal opinion is that pub_date should get automatically set to the publishedon value if it is left blank. If this doesn’t happen then users like me need to always remember to fill it in (a couple of extra clicks on the calendar) and some users (maybe all UK ones?) will have to remember to backdate this value by one hour.

This actually isn’t a big deal for me, but it is confusing to non-techie users.

Hope that makes sense, and please note I am not ruling out the possibility I have just misunderstood how this is supposed to work - that’s why the subject heading is "Possible Bug"

/\dam

On a slight tangent, I do believe all CMSs should allow full control over the pub_date field, for privacy reasons. For whatever reason, editors may not want the world to know the exact minute that they published an article (during office working hours for a personal blog for example ;-) ).

/\dam

Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Should I file it as a bug or not?

/\dam

This might help

Thanks, I agree that is a valid workaround but this would be more confusing for my editors, as there is already the "Published On" field which makes logical sense to use, as it allows future publishing etc.

I’d very much like to know if anyone else is experiencing the behaviour I describe in my first few posts, as if they are then I do think it should be filed as a bug report.

/\dam

I’m not experiencing this in either Evo or Revo.

What is your setting in tools | configuration | Site tab | Server Offset Time?

Quote from: sheik at Jun 07, 2010, 07:19 AM

Thanks, I agree that is a valid workaround but this would be more confusing for my editors, as there is already the "Published On" field which makes logical sense to use, as it allows future publishing etc.

I’d very much like to know if anyone else is experiencing the behaviour I describe in my first few posts, as if they are then I do think it should be filed as a bug report.

/\dam

Actually there is no "Published On" date but the "Publish date" which is AFAIK a date in the future when the document will get published.