The Essential Project Forum

Hello,

I've noticed that the physical technology platform for Application Provider is always duplicated on the web page. Is this due to a known bug? Please refer to the screenshots.

All I really want to show is that we have a SiteView 4 which is in production and a POC environment setup for SiteView 5

*** Update: I noticed an extra cell in the html table for physical platform table...it is repeating the physical node name. is that intentional? What is the purpose of this last extra cell see html below: ****



<tr>
<th>Physical Node</th>
<th>Node Technology</th>
<th>Location</th>
<th>Instance Name</th>
<th>Technology Product</th>
<th>Used As</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody><tr>
<td rowspan="1"><a xmlns:fn="http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions" xmlns:easlang="http://www.enterprise-architecture.org/ ... l/language" id="SiteView 4 Server" class=" context-menu-techNodeGenMenu" href="?XML=reportXML.xml&PMA=essential_nbl_ea_Class130041&cl=en-gb">SiteView 4 Server</a></td>
<td rowspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1"></td>
<td><a xmlns:fn="http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions" xmlns:easlang="http://www.enterprise-architecture.org/ ... l/language" id="SiteView 4 Application Server" class=" context-menu-techInstGenMenu" href="?XML=reportXML.xml&PMA=essential_nbl_ea_Class130040&cl=en-gb">SiteView 4 Application Server</a></td>
<td>
<ul>
<li><a xmlns:fn="http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions" xmlns:easlang="http://www.enterprise-architecture.org/ ... l/language" id="SiteView 4" class=" context-menu-techProdGenMenu" href="?XML=reportXML.xml&PMA=essential_nbl_ea_Class130006&cl=en-gb">SiteView 4</a></li>
</ul>
</td>
<td>Live Application deployment</td></tr>
<td><a xmlns:fn="http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions" xmlns:easlang="http://www.enterprise-architecture.org/ ... l/language" id="SiteView 4 Server" class=" context-menu-techNodeGenMenu" href="?XML=reportXML.xml&PMA=essential_nbl_ea_Class130041&cl=en-gb">SiteView 4 Server</a></td>
<td>
<ul></ul>
</td>
<td></td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>



Thanks for your help.

We think this a bug that is resolved in Viewer 5.

Thanks for raising.

John

Since I'm still using 4.x can you please suggest how to fix this bug?

Hi Jamal,

We re-wrote the Application Provider Summary in the v5 release and removed this section. We have some updates in the next release which adds a new view which covers this using a different approach.

If I recall correctly, the team had a difficult time trying to address this specific bug due the to way the original code had been written hence the change in approach. Unfortunately we do not have a patch for this for v4.

Is there anything holding you back from an upgrade to v5?

Cheers

Neil