Beta Versions / Undue notifications

Kyle_Katarn
Site Admin
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:13 pm

Re: Beta Versions / Undue notifications

Post by Kyle_Katarn » Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:57 pm


scheff
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:00 pm
Location: DE

Re: Beta Versions / Undue notifications

Post by scheff » Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:45 pm

SUMO reports that I've installed an application RTInstaller (64 bits). I didn't. As tooltips reveal the installation path and as SUMO reports the publisher, I've an assumptions about the source of this installation being a component of a driver. It reports that I've version 1.0.0.31 installed and that version 1.0.0.61 is available as update.

As configured, a double-click sends my web browser to the SUMO server for further information. There SUMO server reports the same providing additional information. It tells me that 24 SUMO users have this application installed, 9 SUMO users in the current version, and 2 SUMO users in version 1.0.0.31. It does NOT indicate me which version I've installed. Usually shows this page with a (green) current flag, a (blue) user flag and eventually one or several (black) beta flags. Why is the user flag missing for that view on SUMO server?

As I've SUMO professional, the top link for download sends me to the homepage of this software publisher which leads me to their taiwanese interface. As I don't speak any Chinese Language, I can't find the right software and don't have my web browser configured for chinese neither. I've configured my web browser to accept 3 European languages. English is one among them. I don't know if there exists an English interface of that publisher. So I don't know if the URL on SUMO server should be different to get a more understandable web site. Does anybody know?

That hardware manufacturer distributes its software via cooperations with OEM. So I don't know if they also have an English support web site (deep link) for download of the concerned application software. If they have, then I consider it a bug on SUMO server to have stored the wrong URL. If they don't, then there doesn't seem to be a more adequate URL as it is, except for the concern of the previous paragraph. Another consequence is that I don't know where to get this version 1.0.0.61.

When I change the sort order on the report of SUMO, sorting by software publisher in order to see if there exist also another software which might have brought me that component software on my device. It does not provide me the information searched for. But it reveals to me that there exists another software of the same name, different installation path, different hardware and same file name from the same software publisher on my device which has version 1.0.0.62 and SUMO declares it up to date. When I double-click on this other entry of version 1.0.0.62, SUMO sends my web browser to the same page and view on SUMO server, still claiming these 24 SUMO users with this application installed and NONE running version 1.0.0.62. How is this possible that SUMO reports that I run version 1.0.0.62 and SUMO server claims NO SUMO user is running version 1.0.0.62?

I didn't install beta software. And I configured SUMO that I'm not interested in beta software neither. So this does not explain the above behaviour. I don't have any further information for root cause analysis of these bugs on SUMO server. I may provide further details on the hardware concerned by email if needed but this should not be relevant. I've 3 screenshots available and would have attached if possible but couldn't find a way to do so. Shall I create a SUMO server bug report although I don't have relevant server information nor special access beside the public one also used for SUMO purposes?
How to proceed to get these bugs on SUMO server fixed (missing user flag, not recognized users running a version more recent than reported, and eventually wrong flagging of current)?

There is also another strange thing about this software application which is not a bug of KC Softwares, neither for SUMO nor for SUMO server. Strangely the file path tells me that both versions of 64 bit software use the file path of the operating system for 32 bit software applications!

scheff
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:00 pm
Location: DE

Re: Beta Versions / Undue notifications

Post by scheff » Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:56 am

SUMO revealed to me that I installed 2 different applications both having the same component installed in side-by-side manner in different versions and editions. This component reported as application is "CefSharp" resp. "CefSharp (64 bits)".

SUMO reported me that my 32 bit component was up to date in version 65.0.0.0 while my 64 bit component was reported outdated with version 57.0.0.0.

SUMO server revealed to me that there were 8 SUMO users having the 32 bit edition installed with 2 such users running the reported version while there exists also a version 71.0.2.0 run by one user and neither declared current nor beta. SUMO server revealed to me that there were 5 SUMO users having the 64 bit edition installed with version 65.0.0.0 being the current one with 2 such users while I'm being the only one with the reported version and NO SUMO user running any version higher than claimed current.

I then investigated what this component is and if I may update it. I also found that both editions (64 bit and 32 bit) are maintained in parallel and that version 71.0.2.0 is the last stable version with strong recommendation to update to it. The project further reported that there exists a release candidate in version 73.1.120-pre01 and a development version 74.1.130. For the release candidate and the development version, the project reported known issues not yet fixed. Its by design of SUMO that these project information is not used but referred to the installed SUMO user base instead. That's the reason for the inconsistency between 32 bit edition and 64 bit edition reported by SUMO.

So I followed the recommendation. I updated to the latest stable release (71.0.2.0) which was of 10 March 2019. Then I requested SUMO to repeat its check. SUMO then declared both up to date editions up to date on my device. Then I repeated the query on SUMO server. This showed me that 1 SUMO user has installed the 32 bit edition probably outdated in the mean time and automatically fixed its claim on current state to my new version with now 2 SUMO users out of 9. SUMO server furher showed me that 2 SUMO users have installed the 64 bit edition in the mean time probably in my former version and in version 69.0.0.0 automatically adding these 2 new versions reported (69.0.0.0 and 71.0.2.0) and keeping the current state unchanged (65.0.0.0) as still run by 2 SUMO users out of 7. So this shows that the SUMO user base is large enough for this application for the 32 bit edition and not yet for the 64 bit edition.
  • Is there a need to manually fix the current state for the 64 bit edition?
  • Should there be an update on the algorithm for automatically determining a version as current if there exist 32 bit and 64 bit edition and active development?
As I didn't install this component, just two applications supplying and using this component, I think updates on the SUMO user base will be slow for this component. With less than 10 SUMO users I consider SUMO not reliable enough for such applications but nevertheless not doing bad job neither. When observing that SUMO users actively install applications in both editions (as it happened within less than an hour although for this purpose I would consider active also an interval up to 6 weeks) might the algorithm be improved when taking into account both editions as a hint for determining current state. (Of course such a link does no longer exist when active development of the 32 bit edition has dropped even if SUMO users still install applications with the outdated component.)

I guess it seems best to manually fix the current state for the 64 bit edition as long as the user base is not larger and the algorithm of SUMO does not take a look on both editions as long as both are actively developed and fine tuning this algorithm in short term feature update for linking of such editions at least for small user bases.

scheff
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:00 pm
Location: DE

Re: Beta Versions / Undue notifications

Post by scheff » Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:22 am

Similar phenomen happens with application "ImageMagick" in slightly different variation as reported before on "CefSharp". The difference are
  • larger SUMO user base
  • application not only coming as component but also as application
  • SUMO reporting versions installed which SUMO server claims NO SUMO user has installed
SUMO reports that I'm running version 7.0.8.40 for the 64 bit edition up to date and versions 6.8.3, 6.8.8 and 7.0.7.27 as components in 32 bit edition outdated and installed in a side-by-side manner.

SUMO server reports that the 64 bit edition is run by 11 SUMO users, 6 running the claimed current one (7.0.8.40) and no user a higher version. SUMO server reports that the 32 bit edition is run by 12 SUMO users, me running version 7.0.7.27 as only user, 7.0.8.40 being the current one with 4 SUMO users, version 7.0.8.42 being run by one user neither declared current nor beta and NO SUMO user running any version lower than 6.9.0.0!

Why claims SUMO server that no user is running a lower version although SUMO reported also versions 6.8.3 and 6.8.8 on my device?

I already know the project and its high release frequency as well as support of various 64 bit and 32 bit editions. The project reports its version 7.0.8.42 as being the latest release. SUMO does consolidate them to 64 bit edition and 32 bit edition. Its by design of SUMO that these project information is not used but referred to the installed SUMO user base instead. That's the reason for the inconsistency between 32 bit edition and 64 bit edition reported by SUMO.

So again I tried to update. I succeeded for the 64 bit edition. But I could not convince the applications installer to make a side-by-side installation more than once, updating the 6.8.3 installation which was indeed a mixture with 6.7.4-10 not detected by SUMO! Then I requested SUMO to repeat its check. SUMO then declared the 64 bit edition and the updated 32 bit installation up to date while keeping the other two 32 bit installations unchanged out of date. Then I repeated the query on SUMO server. This revealed that probably one SUMO user deinstalled SUMO as the sum on both editions decreased by 1. The current flag didn't move. SUMO server now found me running the updated 64 bit version being the only user and still claiming 7.0.8.40 as current with now 5 SUMO users out of 10. SUMO server didn't change the described data for the 32 bit edition except the summary of now 11 SUMO users. It did hence not change the claim that I'm running version 7.0.7.27, still one user running version 7.0.8.42 and NO user version lower than 6.9.0.0!

What's the reason for this strange behaviour of SUMO server reporting?

(On update of the 32 bit edition I did not enable to update system path for the side-by-side intention and to prevent conclict with the 64 bit edition.)

scheff
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:00 pm
Location: DE

Re: Beta Versions / Undue notifications

Post by scheff » Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:54 am

For another application, SUMo claims available updates but could not refer me to the source for update. It refers to the global home page of the manufacturer. This home page says it is the wrong place to look and I've to select the corresponding country site. After doing so, it still doesn't know of any such application. That was my experience even before I started to use SUMo. So I thought that this application has been removed, eventually just for later operating systems. So I queried this manufacturer database for the old operating system on which I originally installed it. But here again, this application is no longer available.

Although I installed the application "Canon IJ Scan Utility" for support of the scanning feature of a multi-function printer of the manufacturer Canon on Windows XP operating system, I kept this application with later operating system for this scanning feature when migrating to more recent operating systems. For this single application, SUMo reports me that they consist indeed of THREE applications, all outdated, "Canon IJ Scan Utility", "Canon IJ Scan Utility MAPI" and "Canon IJ Scan Utility SETENV". So I assume the latter two being components of the first. I originally got this application of the product page several years ago and can't find it any longer there although other applications are still available and also recognized by SUMo. And I installed this version once without any updates since. Does anybody know if this product has been abandoned with which EOL (end of life) notice and with reference to which alternative product having integrated this scanning feature starting with which minimum version number?

According to SUMo, I've installed
  • Canon IJ Scan Utility version 1.1.0.6486 with claimed available update to version 1.5.0.11835
  • Canon IJ Scan Utility MAPI version 1.0.0.0 with claimed available update to version 1.3.1.10313
  • Canon IJ Scan Utility SETENV version 1.0.0.2 with claimed available update to version 1.3.1.10313
When looking at SUMo server, it reports that
  • Canon IJ Scan Utility has 110 SUMo users running it, with version 1.5.0.11835 being the most recent one with 4 SUMo users running it, version 1.4.0.11007 being the current one with 12 SUMo users running it, my version 1.1.0.6486 being used by 16 SUMo users, with NO user flag so claiming me not being one of these 16;
  • Canon IJ Scan Utility MAPI has 2 SUMo users running it, version 1.3.1.10313 being the current one with 1 SUMo user running it, the only other SUMo user running version 1.1.11.8984, my version 1.0.0.0 not being used by ANY SUMo user;
  • Canon IJ Scan Utility SETENV has 3 SUMo users running it, version 1.3.1.10313 being the current one with 1 SUMo user running it, my version 1.0.0.2 being used by 1 SUMo user, with NO user flag so claiming me not being one of this one!
  • How is this possible?
  • How is it possible that SUMo claims updates available by the manufacturer although the manufacturer does no longer provide this application?
  • How is it possible that SUMo claims me running a version and SUMo server claims that I'm not one of them?
  • How is it possible that SUMo claims me running a version and SUMo server claiming that NO SUMo user running it?
Screenshots are attached as I now found how to do it in the forum.
Attachments
sumo.serv.can.mapi.20190428.png
sumo.serv.can.mapi.20190428.png (96.59 KiB) Viewed 2837 times
sumo.can.mapi.20190428.png
sumo.can.mapi.20190428.png (59.18 KiB) Viewed 2837 times

Kyle_Katarn
Site Admin
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:13 pm

Re: Beta Versions / Undue notifications

Post by Kyle_Katarn » Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:49 pm

Thanks for these long posts ! I'll answer as soon as possible.

simon
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:18 pm

Re: Beta Versions / Undue notifications

Post by simon » Sun May 05, 2019 5:22 pm

The newest stable version of Pale Moon (64 bits) is v28.5.0 but this is marked as a beta.

Kyle_Katarn
Site Admin
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:13 pm

Re: Beta Versions / Undue notifications

Post by Kyle_Katarn » Sun May 05, 2019 6:35 pm

simon wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 5:22 pm
The newest stable version of Pale Moon (64 bits) is v28.5.0 but this is marked as a beta.
Fixed, thanks !

scheff
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:00 pm
Location: DE

Re: Beta Versions / Undue notifications

Post by scheff » Mon May 06, 2019 5:41 pm

SUMo reports correctly that I've installed TreeSize Free Portable version 4.2.2.0. It wrongly claims that an update to version 7.0.5.1407 would be available. And SUMo server doesn't know of such a version! It claims that this tool is installed by 4 SUMo users, my version being the current one and used by 3 out of these 4 SUMo users. This version isn't flagged with the user flag! Why? It further reports that 1 SUMo user runs a higher version number, 4.2.3.0 and NO SUMo user has a version higher!

So please explain why the user flag is missing in my case, why this strange version is reported as available update and fix it.

Kyle_Katarn
Site Admin
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:13 pm

Re: Beta Versions / Undue notifications

Post by Kyle_Katarn » Mon May 06, 2019 8:03 pm

scheff wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 5:41 pm
SUMo reports correctly that I've installed TreeSize Free Portable version 4.2.2.0. It wrongly claims that an update to version 7.0.5.1407 would be available. And SUMo server doesn't know of such a version! It claims that this tool is installed by 4 SUMo users, my version being the current one and used by 3 out of these 4 SUMo users. This version isn't flagged with the user flag! Why? It further reports that 1 SUMo user runs a higher version number, 4.2.3.0 and NO SUMo user has a version higher!

So please explain why the user flag is missing in my case, why this strange version is reported as available update and fix it.
Fixed, thanks !

Post Reply