Gantry's Relationship with YAML is leading to unpredictable results (Hydrogen)

[greenlanegreb]

Hello,

I have an issue whereby, if I load the same YAML file, I end up with different sections nested inside each other without any other changes - these change each time I reload. I am calling this unpredictable results.

Whilst there could easily be something slightly off with my YAML, Gantry's error handling is nowhere near strict enough to point to a line of code it is not happy with.

I have checked, and checked again the sections that are affected and compared them to working YAML templates and, for love nor money, I cannot see any issues with spacing or syntax.

The YAML file itself is here - https://pastebin.com/FMnMr8ay

A screenshot of the latest weird nesting is here: https://snipboard.io/zBjin2.jpg

As you can see, it's still seeing container sections as numbers rather than letters.

Many thanks.

[greenlanegreb]

Update: I've just pulled it through again and unticked keep particles and it seems to have stopped the nesting this time but each main section is appearing as a number (for example main1, main2 etc) despite them being a, b, c per my YAML code above. In the past when this has happened I have been told to reinstall Gantry, reinstall Joomla etc. I have done all of that before and the issue keeps on coming back sporadically. I am also on a new web host now so it is not that either.

[thexmanxyz]

Your file is incorrect, why including system-messages one trillion times in your file? Can you explain the purpose? This is what I found in 3 seconds investigating your file and I'm pretty sure there's is lurking more. I doubt there's a bug in the YAML loading routine as it is proven over quite some time and I know you already quite well to assume an error on your side. Sorry 🙂

[greenlanegreb]

themanxyz - that's just trolling and I refuse to comment any further on non-constructive comments intended to flame. See Github's acceptable conduct restrictions 3(a). I would ask that you please do not comment rather than trolling - it doesn't do anything for you when other people read it, not to mention breaking Github rules. I would also be grateful if you would take your name off this issue. Many thanks.

For others:

There's clearly a bug, per my explanation above and, regardless of the system messages position being restated, this is no reason for the above issues that are, as stated above, sporadic in any event (I have always left system messages space in there for changing later and positions are clearly not intended to be unique - rather the container names are). It would appear to either be a problem in the Gantry code or in YAML itself whereby containers with similar names are not recognised as truly separate (for example "Container 1" and "Container 11".

Any safeguards may also be limited to an arbitrary number of containers - I admit it is a rather large number of containers and perhaps Gantry has not been tested with this use case.
Exactly the same format is reused with unique container names so I genuinely doubt that it would take longer than a minute, for somebody competent, to have already unearthed a specific issue with my YAML code, if there was one. The same format has worked in countless other scenarios. The only change is the most recent Gantry updates, save for some additional containers having been added to the YAML code and containers either having sidebars and asides taken away or added (effectively swapped around).

There also appears to be an unintended requirement that, after loading a custom YAML layout, it must be saved before making changes to the YAML and reloading it - this seemed to calm down the number of sporadic unintended events that I have reported above. If this is intended, or not otherwise catered for, it would be helpful if this was made clear in the load YAML layout dialogue.

[thexmanxyz]

I'm pretty sure my comment is not against any code of conduct. But feel free to report it 🙂 I'm exited to see what happens. You did not waste one word on an obvious issue in your file which I outlined in my post. Instead of trying what I suggest and fix it, you are calling me a troll. Well played.

But let me tell you one thing. If you are Joomla Guy for 16 years you should really know that positions are unique...

[greenlanegreb]

Thanks for entering into some constructive dialogue. Perhaps we could forget about the points scoring now please?

OK, so if you were testing some code, and you wanted to be able to see the error at that position, surely it would actually be useful to have repeated system error messages, nearest to where you were working for debugging purposes and I would have thought that that use case would have been considered within development?

YAML editors return that the YAML does not contain syntax errors. Each container has a different number on the end of the position for example (and uniqueness highlighted):

/container-k/:

  - sidebar**11** 5:
    - position-sidebar
  - main**11** 80:
    - position-breadcrumbs
    - system-messages
    - system-content
  - aside**11** 14:
    - position-aside

/container-l/:

  - main**12** 100:
    - position-breadcrumbs
    - system-messages
    - system-content

As I am sure you are aware, the position names can be changed once YAML is ported in and are arbitrary at the point of loading the YAML file but may result in unintended results when the Joomla enquiry (web view) is obtained. Of course, I do change the position names (per my snag.gy screenshot above).

Why would having a repeated system error section, within a uniquely identified container, cause the issues i've reported please?

To the outsider, this might appear to be a help request through the bug report but ultimately, I cannot logically see what the issue is currently and therefore I am currently of the position that this is either a) outrightly a bug or b) the parser is not picking up the issue as it is allowing the same container to appear twice at different positions defeating the object of the layout manager's ability to recognise anything unique at all. The layout manager would not allow the same container twice (without customised YAML being used) so why should YAML override that?

Many thanks.

[thexmanxyz]

Well I'm saying it one last time. Positions are unique and you have tons of duplicates in your file. A valid YAML file does not mean anything. Start fixing your file before debating about this and that. You're the only one acting childish and uncooperative. So fix your file first and then we can discuss about issues in the loading routine. system-messages is unique full stop. You don't need that more than once anyway.

[greenlanegreb]

I'm sorry you feel that way, I'm really trying to understand the issue to rule it out from being a bug which i'm convinced it is. I've attempted to be constructive here and i've even highlighted to try and emphasise where I am coming from, that I am making each container unique. There was a point when I added a unique identifier to every single system message to but I was told not to do that previously! Are you saying precisely the opposite please? Please understand, that when you get mixed advice, how the goodness can you learn?

There's absolutely no harm in giving what you are saying a crack - sure - and I will. Can I please first confirm that what you are saying is as follows:

Instead of

/container-k/:

  - sidebar11 5:
    - position-sidebar
  - main11 80:
    - position-breadcrumbs
    - system-messages
    - system-content
  - aside11 14:
    - position-aside

You are saying

/container-k/:

  - sidebar11 5:
    - position-sidebar -> I guess I can't have this more than once either. 
  - main11 80:
    - position-cheese
    - position-tomatoes
  - aside11 14:
    - position-aside -> I guess I can't have this more than once either???

The only example in the guide does not have as many sections - this would, honest to God, help if it did! Also, no distinction is drawn on my issues above nor what needs to be unique. Could we have an update there please? Couldn't the Gantry parser point this out to?

[thexmanxyz]

Well you were already convinced in things in our 100s of messages on gitter and you were proven wrong every time. That I'm even pointing on the obvious things is ridiculous to me because I swore myself to never ever get in any discussion with you anymore. I'm at least saying that positions are unique. What positions in Gantry and Joomla are can be found in many many sources. Start there and then if your file is fixed and you're still convinced you are facing a bug feel free to adapt the issue. Without a valid file any further discussion is a waste of time. Sorry.

[greenlanegreb]

Firstly, the YAML file is within the pastebin link above. Secondly, the interpretation of it, by the layout manager is contained within the snag.gy link.

I have effectively asked you, please, to explain the differences between aside and sidebar being reused (these are not unique) and system messages, for example, from what you say, having to be unique. If Gantry's own manual does not explain this in the YAML section, then how are people to know? I'm entirely confused. I've tried to give you an example above and i'd be grateful if you would explain why this is not explained in the official documentation? Why would one rely on secondary sources that could easily be an inaccurate interpretation of what is supposed to happen? Where I am now is as the result of what i've learnt in the chat channel over the years. Let's not forget, that this issue is sporadic. The fact that the interpretation changes ever time I reload the same YAML file points to a bug rather than an unintended consequence borne of error in any event.

You've avoided confirming my interpretation example above?

[thexmanxyz]

You refuse to fix your file so any discussion is useless. The pastebin link never changed it is still the same wrong file. system-messages is a Joomla element my dear friend and has per se nothing to do with Gantry. Gantry just wraps it in a particle. But it has to be unique per definition. That's how things work. Fix your duplicate positions e.g. position-breadcrumbs but there are dozens in your file. I won't fix your file this is your job if you want to prove "your" bug.

[greenlanegreb]

Yeah, sure absolutely - I would never expect you to sit there and fix anything for me. I'm just trying to understand, before I start, what I can and can't do. One thing i'm quietly worried about is, does there not need to be some positions specified in order to add modules later? All as I look to do is to be able to fully control each section with SCSS - to do that, certainly in every single use case I have, i've needed multiple sections. I do appreciate your explanations, I am simply confused about how to properly interpret them. We've got this far, surely it would be good to just iron this out so some good can come of it please?

What can be reused? What can't be? (Seemingly position sidebar can be but system-messages and position-breadcrumbs can't be)

I think that's the clearest way of putting it.

From there - please could the parser be updated to be more verbose about this? Please could the manual be updated to include a few more sections in the code example and go into what always has to be unique and what shouldn't. This would make a lot of sense, avoid confusion, incorrect answers on the chat room, repeat bug reports and answer what I am sure will be a repeating question on the chat room.

An early example file I got from a kindly person, that I have repeatedly copied from, i've just realised left sections adding up to 101 (you might have noticed that in the pastebin example above). At some point, you have to trust people in what they tell you. If the manual isn't decisive, what hope does anybody have of learning?

Thanks.

[thexmanxyz]

I'm not answering that many questions sorry. Use Google to find answers for your questions. Many can be answered by reading the documentation. Please create simple files to understand the concepts. You already got useful hints from me on how to fix issues with your file. Take them and start over. Verify carefully and then come back to outline the bug or create a feature request.

[greenlanegreb]

I'm not answering that many questions sorry

-> You haven't answered any in a way that I can understand and you haven't successfully established that this is not a bug. Being evasive instead of explaining in a way that somebody can interpret suggests that you are not convinced in the purported knowledge that you are sharing. It makes no sense, particularly since it is not backed up in the manual.

Go on Google

Surely the developers would prefer one to rely on their manual than on a search engine. This also makes the presumption that Gantry would never have issues of its own. The proper arena for Gantry issues is in a Gantry forum i.e. here.

Outline a bug

I already have. You have been defensive of Gantry as opposed to disproving a bug, seemingly based on that rather large chip on your shoulder.

Confirmed from this conversation:

1. Sporadic results (each time the same YAML file is reloaded) is highly indicative of a lack of error handling - that would be a bug.

2. A lack of reference to key words that should be unique and ones that shouldn't - I would hope that there are clear rules within Gantry's programming but, with a lack of explanation within Gantry's own documentation, I really cannot be confident without the intervention of the Devs. Simply relying on what YAML should be does not help to disprove Gantry bugs.

[thexmanxyz]

No there is no bug when the input is garbage and you won't try to prove it with a correct file.

Start simple and then go complex. That's all I can provide at this point. As I am seeing you don't understand the concepts fully you should try to do that now.

Everything what you need can be googled in seconds. If I throw a car of a bridge and I'm surprised why it sinks down to the ground of the river might be good analogy. It is not a bug of the car but rather the usage and what you expect.

I now tag @mahagr and @newkind for close as I am seeing the same stubborn behavior I love you for.

Everything to help you was said.

[greenlanegreb]

Except for what should and shouldn't be unique (sidebars and asides can be reused so why couldn't placeholder module positions? and why Gantry is interpreting the same YAML code in different ways every time I press the reload button??? Unpredictable results point like a blinding beacon to bugs.

It would be entirely different if the web "page" didn't look the way it was intended to but customised YAML is allowed to break the layout manager despite a parser being in situ - that sometimes works and more often doesn't. Physics is science, Gantry, without an authoritative manual, is guesswork and more akin to the need to consult a clairvoyant than a scientist.

[greenlanegreb]

Although I was cynical for all of the reasons above, I followed the advice and it didn't work.

Here is Main 11 randomly appearing in the header https://snipboard.io/v5PYuO.jpg

Here is my unique YAML (compliant with the vague advice above): https://pastebin.com/eA1RshuF

Now it will be:

a) "Oh your Joomla install is messed up"

b) "Oh your Gantry install is messed up"

c) "Oh your hosting is messed up"

d) "Oh you have a conflicting module"

(I think i've covered every reason why it couldn't possibly be a Gantry bug now.)

In the case of (a) and (b) - I have had this issue before and I have reinstalled - it didn't make any difference. In the case of (c), i've moved web host since the last time. In the case of (d) I've got the same issue on a clean install with no additional modules activated. Joomla and Gantry (Hydrogen) are also up to date.

The file above (in this post) was how I actually used to have my YAML when I had issues previously, I was previously advised not to make it quite so unique, now i'm being told to again and (a) to (d) above is what I have been advised to do previously in this age old issue. I am convinced that Gantry doesn't seem able to deal with quite so many containers and that the containers are not being read as unique for some reason. This points to the parser, particularly since reloading the same YAML template leads to different results each time - none of them being what was intended.

Naturally there will be no response now the above is disproven.

Sighs.

[thexmanxyz]

Thanks for correcting the file. As I don't see any issue with the file anymore we now have something valid to discuss about / test against. But I believe there is still some issue with the file but I might be wrong. That is all I asked for, to correct the obvious things and start over.

I'm not interested in endless discussions about what other people said. Positions need to be unique and this is intended as they need to be addressable.

Please stop now debating. I personally don't care if there is a bug or not. You probably found a bug and that is something great as it is improves software. As you want to progress with your layout file I would now start to make it as simple as possible to rule out another issue with the file. This is at least what I would do. This will help you find issues with your file or in case there is a bug you will find the reason what breaks the layout manager.

Maybe someone else with more experience with layout files finds the culprit.

[thexmanxyz]

One last thing that is 100% OT now and my last answer on this issue.

You are a toxic person who wants to start endless discussions every time you appear. You are not interested in solutions someone proposes if they don't fit your perspective. I saw that quite often and that was also the reason you got kicked out of the Gitter chat. I remember that. You think you are a super pro in CMS and frontend development but you are NOT.

Sorry @mahagr that I have to say that now but I'm really pissed of this stubborn toxic behavior. We see the same thing in other issues he opened on GitHub and what he wrote on Gitter in the past. I might be self-conscious but it is the same stuff every time...

[mahagr]

@greenlanegreb I am not able to see the YAML file, but the section and position names need to be unique (or if a general name is used, there should be only a single instance of it). This is because of Gantry uses those names as IDs and inserts the contents based on the ID. Having conflicting names will cause undefined behaviour, which may alter based on caching state and other random events.

The reason why there's no detection for this is mostly twofold: it makes the code slow and there are no checks on saving either because of historical reasons, mostly to keep backwards compatibility to the older themes. Also, these files are not meant to be changed without deeper knowledge of the internal workings -- yes, there is room for an improvement in the documentation on this part.

@thexmanxyz In public non-moderated discussions, there will always be flame wars and toxic behaviour. The best thing anyone can do is not to get stuck into those conversations which tend to trigger you. I generally just ignore people who are not polite to me as I don't have the time nor interest in arguing with people unless it is productive to do so.

[greenlanegreb]

@mahagr Thanks for this. Each container and item within it is unique. One thing, upon reflection I have not done, is to clear the Gantry Cache - it is however in development mode and I was once told (not sure if this is right) that the development mode is largely to overcome caching issues.

I would have thought that the layout manager, upon using the load functionality, should always return the same result, regardless of whether the YAML is correct or not.

Many thanks.

[thexmanxyz]

@mahagr the file is there it is just incorrectly linked. Take the URL and not the link.

[greenlanegreb]

Just an update - I did clear all Caches, browser, Gantry and Joomla but the same issue still presents.

[dmleeman]

Just an idea, but why not post a mock up of the layout that you are looking for. In the original YAML file, it was difficult to see the intended end result. A mock up would give other members a chance to post a solution.

[greenlanegreb]

@mahagr the file is there it is just incorrectly linked. Take the URL and not the link.

From this, were you able to see any obvious issues?

Thanks.

[dmleeman]

Ok, by pasting the quoted url I can see your YAML structure now.

Am I right in thinking that you are looking to create a series of sections and at various points you have sections with left and right sidebars, then a 100% section, then a sidebars section, etc.?

[thexmanxyz]

@greenlanegreb Did you now try what I suggested you? Did you start over with a simple layout file to narrow down the issue so that you actually get a feeling on how layout files should look like!? I'm asking that because I know you are already tinkering around with that layout file for months now. The last time you asked with a quite similar file was back in 2019. In my opinion it doesn't make sense given the complexity of your file to discuss that here.

This would also help in determining the reason of the bug you're reporting here. Even though I suspect that there is a bug at all but rather the file which is not correct. If you did not start with a fresh file or a working pre-defined layout file and modifying it step by step I would really and for gods sake suggest to do that right now.

[dmleeman]

Given his level of experience, if thexmanxyz has taken time to respond, I personally would follow his advice. I'm not 'ganging up' against you personally (there is clearly some 'history' here). It's simply a case of probabilities. Gantry5/YAML bug far less probable than an error in the proposed structure. Giving it a quick look over, it's too complicated for me to be of any help, certainly if mahagr and thexmanxyz have already advised upon it. I just thought that, given the practice of sketching out a layout (wireframe/mockup whichever) before committing to code, then seeing the design in its preliminary form may result in a solution for you.

[thexmanxyz]

@dmleeman It's everything fine, nothing wrong with your advices ;). What I already suggested the other day is a basic concept when dealing with new stuff. Starting small, try out how it works and then go complex. This is the way how learning and understanding how things work is far easier.

You can also create a complex file without fully understanding the concepts. There is nothing invalid with that approach but you will probably waste hours or days...TBH I would not go with that approach.

I also leave the rants away because it doesn't help anybody. But my experience tells me that he won't try what I suggest because he is to lazy. It's far easier to say that there is a bug, Gantry is shit etc. or wait and ask over and over again until someone else will fix the file...and if not, complain.

[dmleeman]

"You can also create a complex file without fully understanding the concepts. There is nothing invalid with that approach but you will probably waste hours or days...TBH I would not go with that approach."

Ha! yes, I've done that! Like a fly at a window pane 👍

[greenlanegreb]

Thank you for your comments. I'd point you to my previous posts. There seems to be a lot of reading other's comments and not a lot of reading my own. The fact that you have a bug is blindingly obvious. I will quote myself from above:

"...Gantry is interpreting the same YAML code in different ways every time I press the reload button??? Unpredictable results point like a blinding beacon to bugs...." "...It would be entirely different if the web "page" didn't look the way it was intended to but customised YAML is allowed to break the layout manager despite a parser being in situ - that sometimes works and more often doesn't..."

The Xmanxyz has said: "Thanks for correcting the file. As I don't see any issue with the file anymore we now have something valid to discuss about / test against...."

Other than repointing to:

a) The same YAML template working with other websites;

b) The parser having a clear purpose but sometimes reporting on issues and other times going as far as breaking the layout manager is a clear issue - i'm not so sure that nested containers are actually necessary to achieve a particular task or even in any way beneficial given that SCSS/CSS classes can be called on existing section and module positions in any event.

c) As raised in the past, the need to create a custom layout in order to have a variation in when the sidebar and aside exists and doesn't is inflexible.

d) Most obviously ignored in this chain is the fact that every time the load button is pressed, the same loaded YAML layout is interpreted differently.

I would have thought, by now, this would have been looked at from a Developer point of view.

Thanks.

[thexmanxyz]

@greenlanegreb

I read your posts but your information is contradictory.

The fact that you have a bug is blindingly obvious....Unpredictable results point like a blinding beacon to bugs.

Well is it? I doubt it is! I would be careful not to make such a general statement at all. Without the knowledge of codeflow it doesn't tell you at all if there is a bug or not. It just tells us that the error handling might not be 100% correct.

a) The same YAML template working with other websites;

You repointing? That original file was not correct so I guess it did not work on other sites as well. You also did not state anywhere that it works on other websites! Where did you state that? If it works on other sites it proves just one thing, that your website has an issue (custom modification, hoster, Gantry, Joomla,...). If it works on a clean install it is with a high chance no Gantry bug.

Try that and report back! (clean means clean just Gantry + Template + Joomla)

c) As raised in the past, the need to create a custom layout in order to have a variation in when the sidebar and aside exists and doesn't is inflexible.

Well and how you expect this to work? This is an architecture breaker. You can only achieve this with a custom layout and I see no issue at all doing it like that.

d) Most obviously ignored in this chain is the fact that every time the load button is pressed, the same loaded YAML layout is interpreted differently.

That proves nothing and I say that as a software developer. It indicates some issue but it does not prove anything related to your issue.

What did you do since my last answer? Did you try anything I suggested you? Yes / No?

Did you start over with a fresh template included layout file and started modifying it step by step to see what breaks the layout manager to rule out issues with your file? This would actually help @mahagr to find the issue of your problem. So why not doing this?

If you want to contribute something useful, for fucks sake start enclosing the issue you are facing. What is your intention? No one will logon to your site and fix issues with your installation for you. That will not happen. You are still not providing consistent comprehensible information of the actual issue. We just see your complex file and your explanation "doesn't work .... I'm convinced it is a bug..." but you did not do anything to enclose the issue.

After all the text you dumped here I personally still don't know if you checked the validity of the file at all (step-by-step). I don't know if this is an issue that happens on just one site or not. You are not clearly telling us. You're assuming there MUST be a bug because you can't explain it to yourself and you don' try to enclose the issue. Please do that. Stop debating and tell us the necessary facts.

[thexmanxyz]

@greenlanegreb BTW 1min reading the documentation I found the first issue in your file.

Layout Documentation Gantry

version: 2

preset:
  image: gantry-media://images/admin/layouts/3-col-right.png

layout:
  /header/:
    -
      - menu

  /container-main/:
    -
      - main 60:
        - position-breadcrumbs
        - system-messages
        - system-content

      - sidebar1 20:
        - social
        - position-sidebar
        - position-right

      - sidebar2 20:
        - social
        - position-sidebar
        - position-right

  /footer/:
    -
      - position-footer
    -
      - copyright 40
      - spacer 30
      - branding 30

  offcanvas:
    -
      - mobile-menu

structure:
  sidebar1:
    subtype: aside
    block:
      fixed: 1
  sidebar2:
    subtype: aside
    block:
      fixed: 1

Can you already see the issue with your file when compare it with the above snippet? Your structure part in the layout file is incorrect or in the best case just does nothing as you are referencing on aside and sidebar that aren't in the file...The file you initially posted never worked on no site...I'm pretty sure on that. Because the YAML parser does not know what is an aside because you never defined it in the file...

[thexmanxyz]

@greenlanegreb Another 2mins evaluating your file. Next issue:

BTW this is from the documentation did you read it? Why didn't you do it like it is described there? I will highlight the important part:

EACH HORIZONTAL ROW NEEDS TO EQUAL 100% WIDTH

You did not do that...

Will you now start over with a fresh file please, for fucks sake? Or will you now again start to discuss that the issue is the YAML parser and not your faulty file?

Everything I told you so far was a useful hint:

• positions have to be unique (you did not believe)
• system-messages has to be unique (you did not believe)
• start over with a fresh file to enclose the issue (you did not do that at all)

[thexmanxyz]

Take now the documentation, read it carefully. Then start with a fresh working file and extend it incrementally with your changes. Step-by-step and verify after each step. This will help YOU not us in understanding how your layout files should look like so that they are working. This sounds to me like a good approach can we agree on that now please?

When you did this and found an issue in one of the baby-steps you can't explain. Come to this issue, state the issue and you will receive help. If you're not doing this you're lost...full stop.

[dmleeman]

@thexmanxyz

I've been following this and found your answers very useful. With a good read of the docs and the detail in this thread I have successfully created a batch of yaml based layouts. I've been working mainly on Helium variants and usually managed to use a 'built in' section on all of my gantry5 based sites.

So, if it has not helped anyone else, I can say for sure that the advice here has helped me to progress.

[mahagr]

The issue is here:

      - sidebar1 20:
        - social
        - position-sidebar
        - position-right

      - sidebar2 20:
        - social
        - position-sidebar
        - position-right

Both sidebars have identical particles and positions. I cannot remember the exact logic, but with positions, it will likely just render the content two times and with particles, it'll assign random id every time.

Saving the layout in admin freezes the layout, so I recommend doing that, too. Defining layouts like this are only supported in presets as layouts will add a lot extra information during the save.

[thexmanxyz]

@mahagr but that snippet is from the documentation 🙂 it's not taken from @greenlanegreb file.

But thanks for the additional input on the use of layout files. Might it be useful to update the documentation then to prevent confusion? Because currently the snippet is kind of misleading as it contains duplicate positions.

[N8Solutions]

@mahagr but that snippet is from the documentation 🙂 it's not taken from @greenlanegreb file.

But thanks for the additional input on the use of layout files. Might it be useful to update the documentation then to prevent confusion? Because currently the snippet is kind of misleading as it contains duplicate positions.

Since that is from the documentation under How to Create a Sidebar Section, maybe @RyanMPierson can take a look at it so it can be updated.

[mahagr]

Yes, looks like there's some kind of copy/paste mistake in that section of the documentation.

[simmonsr]

i fixed the doc issue here.