Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ConcurrencyException in SearchContentItems API with ContentPickerFields #16784

Closed
dannyd89 opened this issue Sep 24, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed
Labels

Comments

@dannyd89
Copy link
Contributor

dannyd89 commented Sep 24, 2024

Describe the bug

Currently if you have multiple ContentPickerFields using the same DisplayedContentTypes set to them, you get very annoying problems:

  1. If you have an item already set to the ContentPickerField then the field might not render the DisplayText, because the item wasn't loaded
  2. The ContentPickerFields don't show any items to select if you click in them. Sometimes some show some items and the other one doesn't. If you input a search string into the ContentPickerField it will successfully show the list of chooseable items.
  3. In Sentry I see the exception thrown in the screenshot below

Orchard Core version

2.0

To Reproduce

My setup is:

  • Hosted in an Azure App Service with the basic dev plans, so it's rather slow
  • Using MySql as DB
  • Using multiple tenants
  • Using distributed tenants (multiple servers, one DB)
  • The types were generated in code
  • We do have a lot of content items (>10000)
  • Locally with Sqlite and in a tenant this problem occurs too

Expected behavior

ContentPickerFields work as in 1.8.x and show the expected content

Logs and screenshots

Sentry error
image
Example in the CMS
image

@dannyd89
Copy link
Contributor Author

dannyd89 commented Sep 24, 2024

This might have been fixed on main with #16757 because I currently can't reproduce it on main.

Any idea if this might warrant a service release?

@Piedone
Copy link
Member

Piedone commented Sep 24, 2024

Thaks for the detailed report. Yep, this seems to be the same as #16741. And yep, we'll need to have a 2.0.1: #16786.

@Piedone Piedone closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Sep 24, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants