Magento 1.9.3.0 product page design is reverted to base/default
I have a Magento 1.9.3.0 test shop for which I've created a new theme based on rwd
. This shop uses a database that's been cloned from the production environment (Magento 1.8.1.0). Everything works very well except this weird bug:
When I visit a product view page the package/theme gets reverted to base/default
from rwd/myCustom
.
If I go in Admin and edit the product I was looking at earlier and just hit "Save" or "Save and continue" even without making any change, then refresh the product page again, the correct theme appears (rwd/myCustom
)
I don't have many products (~50) so I could just manually go through them and "fix" them but I am more curious what causes this.
- None of the products have a custom design set.
- I've cleared cache, re-indexed a bunch of times so it's not that.
- I've checked under Systems > Design and there's are no entries there.
- I've tried a mass attribute update (Select All > Actions: Update
Attributes > Change an attribute for all products > Save) but that
doesn't seem to fix anything. - Logs (magento & apache) show nothing when accessing "bugged" product
pages
Programatically loading and saving a product doesn't fix it.
product-page theme-fallback magento1.9.3.0
add a comment |
I have a Magento 1.9.3.0 test shop for which I've created a new theme based on rwd
. This shop uses a database that's been cloned from the production environment (Magento 1.8.1.0). Everything works very well except this weird bug:
When I visit a product view page the package/theme gets reverted to base/default
from rwd/myCustom
.
If I go in Admin and edit the product I was looking at earlier and just hit "Save" or "Save and continue" even without making any change, then refresh the product page again, the correct theme appears (rwd/myCustom
)
I don't have many products (~50) so I could just manually go through them and "fix" them but I am more curious what causes this.
- None of the products have a custom design set.
- I've cleared cache, re-indexed a bunch of times so it's not that.
- I've checked under Systems > Design and there's are no entries there.
- I've tried a mass attribute update (Select All > Actions: Update
Attributes > Change an attribute for all products > Save) but that
doesn't seem to fix anything. - Logs (magento & apache) show nothing when accessing "bugged" product
pages
Programatically loading and saving a product doesn't fix it.
product-page theme-fallback magento1.9.3.0
as you are talking about the hitting save and it solves the issue, you still have indexing issues, although you reindexed seems still the tables were not indexed correctly.
– Nickool
Oct 20 '16 at 22:59
add a comment |
I have a Magento 1.9.3.0 test shop for which I've created a new theme based on rwd
. This shop uses a database that's been cloned from the production environment (Magento 1.8.1.0). Everything works very well except this weird bug:
When I visit a product view page the package/theme gets reverted to base/default
from rwd/myCustom
.
If I go in Admin and edit the product I was looking at earlier and just hit "Save" or "Save and continue" even without making any change, then refresh the product page again, the correct theme appears (rwd/myCustom
)
I don't have many products (~50) so I could just manually go through them and "fix" them but I am more curious what causes this.
- None of the products have a custom design set.
- I've cleared cache, re-indexed a bunch of times so it's not that.
- I've checked under Systems > Design and there's are no entries there.
- I've tried a mass attribute update (Select All > Actions: Update
Attributes > Change an attribute for all products > Save) but that
doesn't seem to fix anything. - Logs (magento & apache) show nothing when accessing "bugged" product
pages
Programatically loading and saving a product doesn't fix it.
product-page theme-fallback magento1.9.3.0
I have a Magento 1.9.3.0 test shop for which I've created a new theme based on rwd
. This shop uses a database that's been cloned from the production environment (Magento 1.8.1.0). Everything works very well except this weird bug:
When I visit a product view page the package/theme gets reverted to base/default
from rwd/myCustom
.
If I go in Admin and edit the product I was looking at earlier and just hit "Save" or "Save and continue" even without making any change, then refresh the product page again, the correct theme appears (rwd/myCustom
)
I don't have many products (~50) so I could just manually go through them and "fix" them but I am more curious what causes this.
- None of the products have a custom design set.
- I've cleared cache, re-indexed a bunch of times so it's not that.
- I've checked under Systems > Design and there's are no entries there.
- I've tried a mass attribute update (Select All > Actions: Update
Attributes > Change an attribute for all products > Save) but that
doesn't seem to fix anything. - Logs (magento & apache) show nothing when accessing "bugged" product
pages
Programatically loading and saving a product doesn't fix it.
product-page theme-fallback magento1.9.3.0
product-page theme-fallback magento1.9.3.0
edited 9 mins ago
Teja Bhagavan Kollepara
3,01241949
3,01241949
asked Oct 20 '16 at 22:33
Alexandru BangalăAlexandru Bangală
518
518
as you are talking about the hitting save and it solves the issue, you still have indexing issues, although you reindexed seems still the tables were not indexed correctly.
– Nickool
Oct 20 '16 at 22:59
add a comment |
as you are talking about the hitting save and it solves the issue, you still have indexing issues, although you reindexed seems still the tables were not indexed correctly.
– Nickool
Oct 20 '16 at 22:59
as you are talking about the hitting save and it solves the issue, you still have indexing issues, although you reindexed seems still the tables were not indexed correctly.
– Nickool
Oct 20 '16 at 22:59
as you are talking about the hitting save and it solves the issue, you still have indexing issues, although you reindexed seems still the tables were not indexed correctly.
– Nickool
Oct 20 '16 at 22:59
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I just figured it out!
Notes:
The old (production) site is running a package called oldtheme
.
The new (development) site is running a theme called myCustom
under the rwd
package.
After digging through app/code/core/Mage/Core/Model/Design/Package.php
and logging the designPackageExists
function with Mage::log
I've noticed that Magento was looking for an oldtheme
package instead of rwd
.
I did a search in the database and revealed that under catalog_product_entity_varchar
there were a bunch of entries with the oldtheme/default
value.
I tracked the entry's entity_type_id
in the eav_attributes
table and found that its corresponded to the custom_design
attribute (even though non of the products had a custom design set for any of the store views).
The fix was removing the offending entries from catalog_product_entity_varchar
.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "479"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmagento.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141930%2fmagento-1-9-3-0-product-page-design-is-reverted-to-base-default%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I just figured it out!
Notes:
The old (production) site is running a package called oldtheme
.
The new (development) site is running a theme called myCustom
under the rwd
package.
After digging through app/code/core/Mage/Core/Model/Design/Package.php
and logging the designPackageExists
function with Mage::log
I've noticed that Magento was looking for an oldtheme
package instead of rwd
.
I did a search in the database and revealed that under catalog_product_entity_varchar
there were a bunch of entries with the oldtheme/default
value.
I tracked the entry's entity_type_id
in the eav_attributes
table and found that its corresponded to the custom_design
attribute (even though non of the products had a custom design set for any of the store views).
The fix was removing the offending entries from catalog_product_entity_varchar
.
add a comment |
I just figured it out!
Notes:
The old (production) site is running a package called oldtheme
.
The new (development) site is running a theme called myCustom
under the rwd
package.
After digging through app/code/core/Mage/Core/Model/Design/Package.php
and logging the designPackageExists
function with Mage::log
I've noticed that Magento was looking for an oldtheme
package instead of rwd
.
I did a search in the database and revealed that under catalog_product_entity_varchar
there were a bunch of entries with the oldtheme/default
value.
I tracked the entry's entity_type_id
in the eav_attributes
table and found that its corresponded to the custom_design
attribute (even though non of the products had a custom design set for any of the store views).
The fix was removing the offending entries from catalog_product_entity_varchar
.
add a comment |
I just figured it out!
Notes:
The old (production) site is running a package called oldtheme
.
The new (development) site is running a theme called myCustom
under the rwd
package.
After digging through app/code/core/Mage/Core/Model/Design/Package.php
and logging the designPackageExists
function with Mage::log
I've noticed that Magento was looking for an oldtheme
package instead of rwd
.
I did a search in the database and revealed that under catalog_product_entity_varchar
there were a bunch of entries with the oldtheme/default
value.
I tracked the entry's entity_type_id
in the eav_attributes
table and found that its corresponded to the custom_design
attribute (even though non of the products had a custom design set for any of the store views).
The fix was removing the offending entries from catalog_product_entity_varchar
.
I just figured it out!
Notes:
The old (production) site is running a package called oldtheme
.
The new (development) site is running a theme called myCustom
under the rwd
package.
After digging through app/code/core/Mage/Core/Model/Design/Package.php
and logging the designPackageExists
function with Mage::log
I've noticed that Magento was looking for an oldtheme
package instead of rwd
.
I did a search in the database and revealed that under catalog_product_entity_varchar
there were a bunch of entries with the oldtheme/default
value.
I tracked the entry's entity_type_id
in the eav_attributes
table and found that its corresponded to the custom_design
attribute (even though non of the products had a custom design set for any of the store views).
The fix was removing the offending entries from catalog_product_entity_varchar
.
answered Oct 23 '16 at 23:57
Alexandru BangalăAlexandru Bangală
518
518
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Magento Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmagento.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141930%2fmagento-1-9-3-0-product-page-design-is-reverted-to-base-default%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
as you are talking about the hitting save and it solves the issue, you still have indexing issues, although you reindexed seems still the tables were not indexed correctly.
– Nickool
Oct 20 '16 at 22:59