Because I have already tried to do store import from our site 4.3.6 to the new store 4.3.6 and as a member of your staff pointed out, store import isn't designed to do this!
So I installed 4.3.7 on our new site but can't now do store import.
I need Store Import too. We have a clone of our live site patched to 4.3.7. In the next few days, a new theme is being applied to it, plus all of the Add-Ons have been upgraded to work on the newest version. Once this is done I planned to sync via the Store Import from our current live (4.0.3) website to the new version.
I'm not sure how else I could achieve this without the Store Import Tool.
I need Store Import too. We have a clone of our live site patched to 4.3.7. In the next few days, a new theme is being applied to it, plus all of the Add-Ons have been upgraded to work on the newest version. Once this is done I planned to sync via the Store Import from our current live (4.0.3) website to the new version.
I'm not sure how else I could achieve this without the Store Import Tool.
-Scott.
In any case looks like store import is still not updated and no sign of it in 4.3.8
Guys, Store import at testing stage the moment. I hope we will update it at Marketplace within week.
Guys, Store import at testing stage the moment. I hope we will update it at Marketplace within week.
Please also as long as you are testing this, add the ability to choose in the import screen which tables to update and which not. The method with the uncommenting the tables in the table_replacement.php is not so good!
Please also as long as you are testing this, add the ability to choose in the import screen which tables to update and which not. The method with the uncommenting the tables in the table_replacement.php is not so good!
I dont think that is is so hard to implement.
Fotis
Fotis, can you please write why changing table_replacement.php is not good for you?
Fotis, can you please write why changing table_replacement.php is not good for you?
HI imac
I always prefer for my customers who whish to upgrade themselfes and are not so familiar with files editing (including the risks of opening and saving a file) to give them a UI friendly screen and just interact with the familliar interface of CS-Cart.
It would be easier for me also if I dont have every time to edit files and jsut make a click before I hit update.
I concur. Since this is a tool it should be flexible.
Just create a big list of tables with checkboxes checked that match what you would import.
We can then simply uncheck the once we don't want messed with. I.e. manytimes development work has been done on the target site and we don't want to overwrite blocks, settings, addons, etc.
Or simpler yet, just have a tool that updates/replaces things by 'object':
users (profiles and all related)
products (features, images, prices, etc.)
orders
Some addon data like discussions/reviews, subscribers, access_restrictions, etc. But none of these should affect the addon settings. These should all be selectable.
Think of the model this way. I have a site (www). I clone it to another site on the same server (dev).
I then go through the upgrade process on dev to get it up to date. But end up doing some development at the same time (to possibly correct some "bad practices" of the past).
When I'm done and customer is happy wtth the site (could be days or even months), I want to be able to "sync" the dev site with production so it can be verified. I then close the www store, swizzle the DNS and open the (prior) dev store as the production site.
No loss of product data, users, orders, customers, etc. Just want to update the catalog data (nothing related to the UI).
This is the real world environment that many of us live in. I.e. don't go above the business layer.
I concur. Since this is a tool it should be flexible.
Just create a big list of tables with checkboxes checked that match what you would import.
We can then simply uncheck the once we don't want messed with. I.e. manytimes development work has been done on the target site and we don't want to overwrite blocks, settings, addons, etc.
Or simpler yet, just have a tool that updates/replaces things by 'object':
users (profiles and all related)
products (features, images, prices, etc.)
orders
Some addon data like discussions/reviews, subscribers, access_restrictions, etc. But none of these should affect the addon settings. These should all be selectable.
Think of the model this way. I have a site (www). I clone it to another site on the same server (dev).
I then go through the upgrade process on dev to get it up to date. But end up doing some development at the same time (to possibly correct some "bad practices" of the past).
When I'm done and customer is happy wtth the site (could be days or even months), I want to be able to "sync" the dev site with production so it can be verified. I then close the www store, swizzle the DNS and open the (prior) dev store as the production site.
No loss of product data, users, orders, customers, etc. Just want to update the catalog data (nothing related to the UI).
This is the real world environment that many of us live in. I.e. don't go above the business layer.
I have already something ready where I have not all tables but objects as you say, but the thing is althougj is an internal tool for the noumerous updates. we still need to upgrade and debug. It would be nice to have this as default option
{__("orders")}
I ll be happy to give my code to CS-Cart if its going to be on a next release!
When I'm done and customer is happy wtth the site (could be days or even months), I want to be able to "sync" the dev site with production so it can be verified. I then close the www store, swizzle the DNS and open the (prior) dev store as the production site.
No loss of product data, users, orders, customers, etc. Just want to update the catalog data (nothing related to the UI).
What do you call a 0.x.x and x.0.x release then, I'm confused. Traditionally it's always been major.minor.patch.
You are right. the 3rd digit version is patch.
Looks like Yan was confused.
The point is that previously we by mistake called it like this: major.major.minor. But now we stick to semver.org and it is like you wrote: major.minor.patch