I am experiencing either a significant lag between my making changes to my reusable elements or just a total lack of updating of them. Has anyone else experienced this?
It took me a while to realize that it was that changes are not being updated. I had been assuming that these elements had become corrupt.
Having too erase and replace reusable elements kinds of defeats the point of them so I am hoping that there is something that I am doing wrong that is causing this behavior.
I ran into this issue with one of my reusable elements, I noticed that data inputs to workflows within the reusable would update to my changes, then the next day they were back to what they were originally. I don’t know why it was doing this but it has since stopped
I have been getting the distinct impression that changes that I have made to reusable elements and non reusable elements are getting reversed. Have not been able to prove this but am wondering if the use of duplicate windows is somehow to blame.
I had created multiple versions of the re-usuable element and had not changed the names of the component elements of the copy to make it easy to distinguish between the versions and I had updated the version that is not currently showing.
Lesson learned/remembered is always rename all of the subcomponent objects if you make a copy of multi-element object.
What would be nice is if Bubble could add in the name of the re-usuable object that is the parent of any child objects that are involved in workflows in the workflow debugger.
Note to Support - I sent in a bug report on this issue but never got an email confirming the bug report as being received so I am unable to give you an update. It would be nice if Bubble could invest in a proper support ticketing system that would allow contributors to log on, see their outstanding bug reports and update them. I figure it would save Bubble a ton of time if this were in fact implemented. I am fairly certain that there are many bug reports like my last one that could be killed before any time on Bubble’s part was invested.
