Update detected but former version installed

[FORTE-WP]

Hi Andy,

Still loving your plugin, but having some problems. The latest version detects the new update in bitbucket ( 0.7.7) but it installs a previous version (0.6.3). Any idea what the problem might be? Btw: a new install from bitbucket will install the correct version.

Thanks, Frank

[afragen]

Frank, this usually happens if the tag isn’t up to date with the version.

[idpaterson]

I am seeing the same issue with Bitbucket for both plugins and themes. While the update page shows that 1.4.1 is installed and 1.5.0 is available it repeatedly downloads and installs the prior version:

Downloading update from https://bitbucket.org/x/y/get/1.4.1.zip…
Unpacking the update…
Installing the latest version…
Removing the old version of the theme…
Theme updated successfully.

I am using ghu 8.6.0 with wp 5.0.3 and have tried clearing the updater cache. Tags and versions are pushed to master in both repositories and we have used ghu for years so I don't think there were any recent changes on our end. I tried purging our cache just in case something was stuck in memcached but no luck.

I will likely have a few more patch releases coming over the next few days if anything else needs to be tested but for now reinstalled both fresh.

[afragen]

Can you give user afragen read access to the repo in question. It makes it easier to check.

[idpaterson]

I put in a request for the owner to grant read access. While Bitbucket shows 1.5.0 as the latest tag the raw repo metadata in the options table confirms that the tags array contains only up to 1.4.1 while the plugin file defines the version as 1.5.0.

[afragen]

What’s the most recent tag?

[idpaterson]

1.5.0 is the latest tag on bitbucket for this particular private repo, the cached data has everything except the latest:

    [tags] => Array
        (
            [0] => 1.2.6
            [1] => 1.2.7
            [2] => 1.2.8
            [3] => 1.3.0
            [4] => 1.3.1
            [5] => 1.3.2
            [6] => 1.3.3
            [7] => 1.3.4
            [8] => 1.4.0
            [9] => 1.4.1
        )

1.4.1 is the prior version that is currently installed (haven't actually force-updated it yet since you were so quick to respond). 1.5.0 was published about 40 minutes ago as of this comment.

[afragen]

If you refresh the cache is the newest tag showing up?

[afragen]

Is the 1.5.0 tag named 1.5.0 or something different?

[idpaterson]

Each time I clear the updater cache it eventually prompts to update the theme again with the same data; 1.5.0 declared in the theme file but 1.4.1 as the latest tag.

It's exactly 1.5.0:

[idpaterson]

I'm not sure how they managed to break the API but there's certainly nothing strange happening in ghu... the BitBucket API is just not returning that latest tag. Confirmed with curl, you have read access now to take a look.

At this point I suppose I will try bumping one of the repos again and see if BitBucket updates to the correct tag or continues to lag behind by one.

[idpaterson]

Ah, the API is paged and returned in an order where page 1 provides no guarantee to contain the latest release. In my particular case, updating a plugin to 2.2.2 leaves 2.2.0 as the latest known tag. Requesting the next page shows the latest tag (oddly, following the latest tag is the 0.x series). Possibly returned in decreasing order in the past or I was just unlucky and both plugin and theme happened to cross that paging threshold?

It looks like handling the paging would be a viable solution if there is no way to get those sorted more reasonably to start with.

[afragen]

I’m on mobile right and can confirm what you’re seeing. I’ll take a closer look later.

[idpaterson]

Thanks for following up so quickly on mobile! It looks like the easiest fix is to change the API request to .../refs/tags?sort=-name which should sort correctly:

The name field is handled specially for tags in that, if specified as the sort field, it uses a natural sort order instead of the default lexicographical sort order. For example, it will return ['1.1', '1.2', '1.10'] instead of ['1.1', '1.10', '1.2'].

[afragen]

I was thinking I could set the page_length=100 on the query. Or something like that.

[FORTE-WP]

Hi Andy, Great to hear you found the problem! I already deleted my repository to start with a blank slate (version 1.0.0) Because I am not the best programmer, I could easily get to more than a 100 revisions. So that might not be the best solution for me :-) Strangely enough the correct new version is detected, but not always dowloaded. So I would suggest to check the API list on the existance of the detected new version. (just a comment from a beginning programmer :-) Still loving your plugin! Frank Met vriendelijke groet, Frank Olthof FORTE web publishing CREËER KANSEN MET DE KRACHT VAN WORDPRESS Internet: www.forte.nl Telefoon: +31 6 13 26 31 31 Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 22:48 schreef Andy Fragen <[email protected]>:

…

I was thinking I could set the page_length=100 on the query. Or something like that. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#752 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASU32wEMe48ocWvBMxzXsRckdpcXaswQks5vB7UWgaJpZM4ZhCCY> .

[afragen]

I believe this should now be fixed. In addition to sorting the API response I'm also getting 100 items per page. This is the maximum allowed.

Please confirm the fix and I'll push a release.

[idpaterson]

Excellent! I will try the latest from develop on staging.

[idpaterson]

Everything worked normally and my repo metadata is now in descending order including all tags

    [tags] => Array
        (
            [0] => 1.5.3
            [1] => 1.5.2
            [2] => 1.5.1
            [3] => 1.5.0
            [4] => 1.4.1
            [5] => 1.4.0
            [6] => 1.3.4
            [7] => 1.3.3
            [8] => 1.3.2
            [9] => 1.3.1
            [10] => 1.3.0
            [11] => 1.2.8
            [12] => 1.2.7
            [13] => 1.2.6
            [14] => 1.2.5
            [15] => 1.2.4
            [16] => 1.2.3
            [17] => 1.2.2
            [18] => 1.2.1
            [19] => 1.2.0
            [20] => 1.1.1
            [21] => 1.1.0
            [22] => 1.0.3
            [23] => 1.0.2
            [24] => 1.0.1
            [25] => 1.0.0
            [26] => 0.6.0-beta
            [27] => 0.5.0
            [28] => 0.4.1
            [29] => 0.4.0
            [30] => 0.3.0
            [31] => 0.2.0
            [32] => 0.1.1
            [33] => 0.1.0
        )

[Gaffen]

I seem to be encountering this issue at the moment. Are there any sanity checks I can perform to establish where the issue is?

[afragen]

@Gaffen this is a closed issue. It's better to open a new one.

Please try to explain in detail what you expect to happen or see and what actually happens. It's also helpful if you can link to your repo.