Dexterity Versioning Does Not Appear to Work

I created a test content type in Dexterity. Included the "versioning" option.

I created an instance. Published, then edited. then withdrew. You see below from the History screen shote that the state changes are captured. However, the text change was not. This appears to be a bug.

I will post this as a bug in a few days, unless someone can show me what I am missing.

thanks.---
Screenshot

you're missing a couple of things that must be done in the ZMI and/or Types configlet (I don't remember right now).

an example from one of our projects using GenericSetup:

diff_tool.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<object>
  <difftypes purge="false">
    <type portal_type="collective.nitf.content">
      <field name="any" difftype="Compound Diff for Dexterity types"/>
    </type>
  </difftypes>
</object>

repositorytool.xml

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<repositorytool>
  <policymap purge="false">
    <type name="collective.nitf.content">
      <policy name="at_edit_autoversion" />
      <policy name="version_on_revert" />
    </type>
  </policymap>
</repositorytool>

this needs to be documented.

4 Likes

@hvelarde

thanks. this is why I post here before making a bug report.

@hvelarde
I posted another question, this about webdav, at Dexterity webdav option appears to have a problem

might there by a similar issue in that certain zmi code needs to be present?

@hvelarde I've hired a programmer to try to fix this for me.
Can you help me point him in the right direction.
1) I saw this from content types created in Dex. Is this a Dex issue, or do all new CTs have to have the code (or something like it) you posted above?
2) are you suggesting that I add that code to my buildout for any new CTs?

appreciate your help, I'll pass along your ideas to the programmer.

assuming we find a solution, i'll post back here.

you can add something like that to your content types installation profile, or you can do it in your policy package; I think we're doing the later on our own projects.

this is not an issue but a feature; you must declare what you want to do.

probably is a good idea to use it but I have no strong opinion yet.

Thanks, I passed that along. appreciate your help