In some cases group owners have errors on the website after the update to 4.4. This is due to a 500 error:
Error: Call to a member function getEntityTypeId() on boolean in template_preprocess_activity() (line 61 of /app/html/profiles/contrib/social/modules/custom/activity_creator/activity.page.inc) #0
This is due to code introduced in issue #3026071 which changes the actor for activities. It doesn't check if the entity is a boolean which can be the case if there are no referenced entities found.
Comments
Comment #3
jaapjan commentedPR:
https://github.com/goalgorilla/open_social/pull/1228
Marking as normal as it does seem to impact only platforms which somehow already contain invalid activity data.
Comment #4
jochemvn commentedCan confirm this fixes the issue
Comment #5
jaapjan commentedComment #6
chlodewig commentedI have the same error at a working installation.
Only one user out of 150 get this error:
Error: Call to a member function getEntityTypeId() on boolean in template_preprocess_activity() (Zeile 61...
How did you solve this problem? I cleared every cache and deleted the activities from this user in the database.
What else can I do to find the invalid activity data?
Comment #7
chlodewig commentedComment #8
chlodewig commentedAdditional info: I'm working with the newest Open Social version: 4.5
Comment #9
jaapjan commentedHi chlodewig, not sure if you did it already, but you could apply the patch in this issue. That should solve it. The fix will be in 4.6.
Comment #10
chlodewig commentedOK. Now I got it. Every thing is fine. Thank you.
Comment #11
bramtenhove commentedWe received this error for a client website. I traced it back to a content item posted in to a group and being moved out of the group.
This fix suppresses the error message, but users will see a notification in their stream or notification centre like: User X created [social_group:created_entity_link_html] in the [message:gtitle] group.
I was under the impression that we remove activities when we move content out of a group, this might be in fact the reason this fix was needed. Would be good to do a follow up check in that part of the code.
Comment #12
ronaldtebrake commented