Clover13

@Marc Stridgen is there a way to re-trigger the push to an external storage location via a task? There are some files that weren't moved over and are still stored locally (different problem than the one reported here initially). I don't want to switch the IPS AdminCP configuration from my external bucket storage back to the origin server-sided storage and push back again given the time it takes to do all files.

Thanks @abetts, FWIW I'm experiencing a very similar issue but I ported to BackBlaze. I'll have to see if it applies to Inserted images as well, the cases I've seen so far has been just uploaded/attached but not Inserted. All of my files are also on BackBlaze post externalization but the links in the forum_posts.post records are inconsistent. Any chance you can look at some of your forum_posts.post records and verify the same exists? My topic on this issue:

@abetts Can you verify this issue is isolated to images that have been uploaded/attached to a new topic or reply but not Inserted explicitly (i.e. clicking the Insert link on the image after it's been uploaded)?

This looks like the same issue being experienced recently after porting to S3:

FWIW, I did just proof out updating a forum_posts.post record from <__base_url__>/uploads to <fileStore.core_Attachment> did work as desired and the previously problematic post displayed the image correctly.

OK, I'm simply trying to find where these are changed/parsed and why the parsing is inconsistent. I am not sure how any arbitrary attachment URL sometimes gets parsed one way (as <___base_url__>) and other times a different way (as <fileStore.core_Attachment>), when they are in the same location. I would think everything would consistently be <fileStore.core_Attachment> which points to whatever your fileStore is (whether it's external or it's your base_url). I would think I'd be running into this on S3 as well, unless there was something that either updated the table data or at runtime parses and replaces <__base_url__> with the proper <fileStore.core_Attachment> reference. Are you saying that is what happens at runtime? I believe this is data sided as there are pre-external migration forum_posts.post references that are correct <fileStore.core_Attachment> and others that are not <__base_url__>. How or why would that be even if I moved to S3?

@Marc Stridgen OK let me ask, regarding migrating /uploads from server storage to S3 by changing the configuration within IPS, is there an IPS process that updates the forum_posts.post table rows as part of that changing the references from <___base_url___> to <fileStore.core_Attachment> If not, what changes those references? Is it even part of this process/change to File Storage or is this something that should have been updated by an upgrade earlier? Seems odd that there is a mix of <___base_url___> references mixed in with the <fileStore.core_Attachment> references.

OK I'll follow-up with them, but at least others know what might be a contributor should they see similar behavior and also support Tapatalk for their site

@Jim M Sorry it's been awhile, I did reach out to Tapatalk and followed their recommendation of setting up a secondary group (that has no actual additive access) to help identify those creating accounts via Tapatalk. It turns out a recent case was related to creating a new account via Tapatalk and somehow triggering multiple (4) Spam checks. The same IP with a different email first triggered two 4s and was blocked correctly, then a new email with that same IP then triggered a 1 and then a 2 (requires manual review). However that first 1 looks like it created the account and the spammer could have posted had I not noticed it and banned them. Still unclear where this issue is or why it's happening but I suspect it's with the create account workflow via Tapatalk? I'll await your thoughts on it. Here's a couple screenshots

Additional update: Found this seems to relate to existing attachments in a post that were NOT explicitly Inserted but rather just attached and implicitly displayed. However once the external source is setup, and you create a new topic and attach a file without explicitly Inserting it, it does embed it with the correct external link. So now the challenge is how to update 20,000 posts where users didn't explicitly Insert their images into a post but rather just attached them. I wonder if this same problem exists on the S3 integration as it seems to be coupled to attachments versus explicitly inserting the attachment after uploading them.

@ASTRAPI@Joel R @CoffeeCake @All Astronauts Re:

Some additional info from the forum_posts.post table... Old/Bad host stored image references (20,747 of them): <img class="ipsImage ipsImage_thumbnailed" data-fileid="145857" data-ratio="133.21" width="563" alt="85296E61-B8EF-4C55-8640-BE98CD471290.jpeg.ed178aa445a008763273ec91835a0721.jpeg" data-src="<___base_url___>/uploads/monthly_2022_05/85296E61-B8EF-4C55-8640-BE98CD471290.jpeg.ed178aa445a008763273ec91835a0721.jpeg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> New/Good external image references (72,055 of them): <a href="<fileStore.core_Attachment>/monthly_2022_05/FDE37ACC-83DC-462E-BB82-7D5EF141747C.jpeg.b8cbb5ee97faaa5cf7f188beae43e774.jpeg" class="ipsAttachLink ipsAttachLink_image"><img data-fileid="145846" src="//www.mysite.com/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" data-src="<fileStore.core_Attachment>/monthly_2022_05/FDE37ACC-83DC-462E-BB82-7D5EF141747C.jpeg.b8cbb5ee97faaa5cf7f188beae43e774.jpeg" data-ratio="133.21" width="563" class="ipsImage ipsImage_thumbnailed" alt="FDE37ACC-83DC-462E-BB82-7D5EF141747C.jpeg"></a></p> <p><a href="<fileStore.core_Attachment>/monthly_2022_05/82AF7ED7-AD6B-46EE-BEEF-134197D01463.jpeg.8c4b4ec85b591f988aa5c00d38b52522.jpeg" class="ipsAttachLink ipsAttachLink_image"><img data-fileid="145847" src="//www.mysite.com/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" data-src="<fileStore.core_Attachment>/monthly_2022_05/82AF7ED7-AD6B-46EE-BEEF-134197D01463.jpeg.8c4b4ec85b591f988aa5c00d38b52522.jpeg" data-ratio="133.21" width="563" class="ipsImage ipsImage_thumbnailed" alt="82AF7ED7-AD6B-46EE-BEEF-134197D01463.jpeg"></a>

I ported my /uploads to external storage (Backblaze, which I know isn't supported directly but does work and I followed this guideline), however some of the images didn't update to the external source URL. The majority are just fine, but there are exceptions I'm finding that are resulting in broken images pointing to my host server's original URL rather than the external URL. Are there additional tasks I can or need to run? I tried clearing the IPS cache, but that won't resolve the image URLs being incorrect.

So use the choose file link rather than drag and drop is the solution?

@Marc Stridgen Looks like it could be related to the CKEDITOR if it's the same one used by this software? This issue was opened just a few weeks ago, same dialog popup. https://jira.xwiki.org/projects/CKEDITOR/issues/CKEDITOR-431?filter=allopenissues Related to: https://github.com/ckeditor/ckeditor4/issues/5095

@Marc Stridgen, I was thinking the same thing. I haven't been able to reproduce it, but also have no idea where this alert even came from. The color scheme also doesn't match my Invision Community theme.

Member reported running into this error some of the time when uploading to a topic. Same file uploads a second try. MOV is an acceptable file type at both default level and member group level. There is no size limitation (or issue as this is a small file around 6MB) for the member group or member. Anyone have any idea where this error comes from?

Is there anything in the account logs that indicates the registration method used? It's not in the member's account activity (in the AdminCP).

Thanks Marc, sent you a couple examples in PM.

So recently I started getting emails on manual review required (spam defense) but the member gets approved automatically anyway. It appears there are two Spam Defense log entries for the same account. The first flags a 3 (manual review required) and the second flags a 1 (auto approval). However, I am not sure why there are two checks?

Yes! Thank you @Adriano Faria!

I get it, but getting client feedback early in the planning process promotes optimal feature targeting directly tied to established client value. Otherwise you're operating in the silo of your company's opinion only, which IMO could cause you to fall short on meeting some requirements your clients actually have/need/want. Iterations are on compounding enhancements with minimizing tech debt incurred, however if you pattern a solution that couples you to your vision (without consideration of the clients'), shifting to meet additional/different requirements may prove difficult (or simply costly that could have otherwise been avoided). Just my .02, been through it in a different industry a number of times.

Looking to set the default behavior for all members and let them override it in their profile if desired. Seems like the default is "Take me to the beginning"

We have some problematic members such that we want to get notified every time they post content (new topic, reply to topic, etc) but without them knowing we're watching over them (i.e. we probably can't follow them without them picking up on it and dealing with the BS around that). There is a specific reason for doing it this way (quietly/silently). Is it possible and if so, where can I set it up?

Thanks Jim, I did, as mentioned in this topic page above.