I'm having an issue on a site that looks like it's broken somehow and thinks it needs to upgrade (from something like cc54g34 -> 12.3.5). I've checked the database and the version looks fine, but can't find what it is comparing to. In v8 days, this used to be stored in the web.config but I can't find where Umbraco finds it in modern versions. Does anyone know where I can find this in v12.3.5 please?

When creating a doctype you get the options element type and composition, is there any difference under the hood? I am creating some compositions inside a migration so just wondering if there is anything else to consider. I've checked the database and both seem to be created the same just with a different default icon? Thanks ❤️

Hi all, We're running multiple Umbraco 13 sites, but some sites take quite some time to boot. We've optimized as much as possible (like UsePagedSql to false, production runtime mode etc), but the NuCache takes some time to load on these larger sites in combination with our custom logic. I know Umbraco 15 will probably be a lot faster, but we want to use deployment slots for web apps in Azure to minimize downtime. By itself, deployment slots are not hard to understand, but the issue I'm having is that I'm uncertain what to do with the database. We're using SQL Databases in Azure and they are not part of the deployment slot. Umbraco or Umbraco form updates run migrations on the database that could potentially break the old Umbraco version that running in the active deployment slot. So in that case there is still downtime, which defeats the point of deployment slots. Anyone has experience with this in combination with Umbraco? Or with deployment slots in Azure in combination with databases in general? Thanks in advance!

We have an existing user database that we would like to use as a "Member" provider in Umbraco. We don't even want Members to appear in Umbraco, we want the whole membership system to be outsourced to our existing database. Is this possible? From searching and documentation, I can only find information on "external authentication providers" but they still use the Umbraco membership system and the Umbraco member database. For example, I want to restrict access to pages to a Member group, using Umbraco "restrict public access" functionality, but I want the logic for authorization and authentication to use our existing user database. I don't want to create Members in Umbraco, I want the access check to use our existing user database.

I'm trying to add some middleware to search and replace specific things in the html output of a page. I've made the middleware for this, but I can't figure out how to register it correctly. I've tried registering like mentioned in https://docs.umbraco.com/umbraco-cms/reference/routing/custom-middleware using the PostPipeline. But when I debug things, the middleware is hit before my controller endpoint is hit. Is there some way I can change the order?

Hey, I've recently upgraded one of our clients sites from umbraco 8.13.1 all the way to 13.0.1 - after some struggling I've managed to sort it out. BUT I've recently discovered that when I log into the backoffice I keep getting "Session timed out." not even 60 seconds after I've logged in. I've tried setting up the TimeOut value in appsettings.json to a multiple different values without any success. I've scoured the internet and I cannot find anything that seems to resolve this issue for me. Is there anyone who've encountered this problem and if so how did you resolve it?

Hi there, Has anyone successfully created a block grid property on v14? I've tried on 3 different installations, and the editor turns up bare every time. The "Install Sample Configuration" option never shows up either - no matter if it's a new installation or not. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1252611661026562179/1252611661228150844/Skrmbillede_2024-06-18_151002.png?ex=6672d904&is=66718784&hm=acb5d1607cb47061d231e2e858696948ad4953087f1d8ba09c25239edf404d61&

I created a document of a specific type that contains a configuration for some component. What is the best way to get this document out of the content tree? Checking the docs here: https://docs.umbraco.com/umbraco-cms/reference/querying left me confused a bit. For now I went with the following apporach:

var config = umbracoHelper.ContentAtRoot().DescendantsOrSelfOfType(MySpecialConfiguration.ModelTypeAlias).FirstOrDefault() as MySpecialConfiguration;

I know that there is only one config of this type so

FirstOrDefault()

is not problematic here. Is traversing the tree like that very consuming? Is it the correct way of getting the config ?

Unable to create an object of type 'BlogContext'. For the different patterns supported at design time, see

This is obviously not ideal, but I'm working with a situation where, rather than building out a whole Angular UI for a backoffice custom page, we're looking into just using an existing .net core set of controller/view/model code to render a custom page. This page should only be accessible to users who are authenticated in backoffice, but since there's no way to 'inject' a standard model/view/controller action into the backoffice UI, we're thinking we just put it on the frontend, but in the action verify that the user is logged in and has the proper Group in the backend. In Umbraco 9, I see references to people doing things like this: https://our.umbraco.com/forum/umbraco-9/106857-how-do-i-determine-if-a-backoffice-user-is-logged-in-from-a-razor-view#comment-334423 They seem to be manually checking the cookies. I believe you'd have to be on a route of /umbraco/backoffice/* in order to see those? Not sure. In any case, the question is: To do the above, what changes in Umbraco 13? https://github.com/umbraco-community/Our-Umbraco-TagHelpers/blob/dee84a4726e3db60b77fb0187a76f8ec0c86e003/Our.Umbraco.TagHelpers/Services/BackofficeUserAccessor.cs There's even a Tag Helper written for Umbraco 9 that does almost what I want (I want to gate the entire Action, not just a part of it), I just need to understand what's different for 13, or if there's a better way to do this.