resin1

Couldn't quite believe that when I read it, as had successfully used it over the summer. But just tried and you are dead right. Speechless. What baffles me more, is that GIAP is still clearly showing as "BETA", and therefore I haven't been trusting it much apart from finding UPNs for pupils where we hadn't managed to source from a previous school (hallelujah they finally gave us that ability!). And I seem to recall last year, when comparing the previous funding list export from K2S against what GIAP was giving, there were some differences, so again reason to be wary of GIAP in Beta. So now they add something only on a Beta site, and then introduce a bug that makes it impossible to export. Class!!!

Have been interested to read this thread. Are supposed to be launching Sync right now but have had delay in setting it up. Kinda worried that even if we take that step, all will not be smooth sailing right now. As potential route out, also contacted Salamander but they told me their order books are full and cannot guarantee any installations before November. Would be highly interested if they have told you otherwise.

So today seems to prove once and for all what a bunch of jokers this company is. I read something the other day that they would be doing something to at least flag up where communications have actually failed due to invalid e-mail address i.e. their e-mails bounced. So what do I see today - their method of flagging this appears to be that they change the "Last name" on the record in question to "BOUNCE". Hey - so you are trying to use their eCode management search facilities for a particular record and search by the surname you know, and... what??? no such record??? But it was there this morning??? What??? Oh... now I see why there's no match. And hey - why is my cross checking where I have been copying the list of eCode redemptions, and I use a join of surname and forename to lookup against clean pupil lists, now showing mismatches?? Oh... now I see why. Meet The BOUNCES meets Meet the Fxxx'ers Thanks for the flagging guys but how goddam crude is that solution?

Just wanted to check if anyone else has successfully had orders move to Fulfilled that were placed on 29/4 or later? We have 3 over the period 29/4 - 1/5 all still showing as Paid. That's a full week delay on the first one. Whilst something has clearly changed that means the queue lengths are right down on the admin site, and at times no queue at all, I can only see fulfilment has got worse. So just curious on others experiences in the past week. And when are these cowboys going to realise that the biggest improvement they could make on the admin side is the ability to correct existing e-mail addresses on a pending or fulfilled order, so that the former goes to the right place first time when it finally goes out, and the latter e-code can be re-sent without having to cancel and re-order (and wait and wait etc etc).

Haven't done the self-distribution route as yet, but I assume if you go via eCode Management=>Self distribute eCodes, and click search with no parameters to get all, or specify an order date range to narrow it down if you have multiple orders, to then get all for that order, the only option I can see is to use the mouse to select the rows in the table, Ctrl-A and Paste Special as Text into Excel. The downside is that this whole web-site is so poorly designed, you'd have to step through each and every page from that search, with its small number of display rows, and repeated that, just to get a full list into Excel to then cross check. Considering the site performance, the repeated server errors, and orders that might have 30-40 pages like that in the output, that's not a job I'd wish on anyone. But a job I'm shortly about to try to do for ours, since I want to do exactly the same cross check on a regular basis. So if anyone comes up with a simpler method, I'm all ears!!

Totally agree - would be a decision based on context. Was just highlighting that there is one major difference that could easily drive the decision to not be the one that those administrating the system would want to be taken, in the best interests of those in need. The gov ought to be taking steps to eliminate that dilemma, but they seem intent on pursuing with a system which, despite the positive "update" messages being put out, simply isn't fit for daily administrative use. I see today they have put a queuing system in place. That surely should be on the order stage, not on the main login page? All i want to do today is log in and check if an order has gone to fulfilled, or check if any from a previous order have been redeemed, in order to deal with queries from parents. That's just all site traversal which should put virtually no load on any key processing part of the site surely? But no - you're not allowed on the site at all. It's stuff like that which should make it a no brainer to ditch it in favour of an alternative method. But then that financial factor could force schools to be dictated by their trusts to persevere with the approved system, while we all wait and wait and wait!

Most school and trust Finance bods will have looked at that exceptional costs funding guidance and the allowance limits, and decided to take a risk averse financial position of not wanting to commit expenditure direct to Wonde (or another) where there isn't a cast iron guarantee they will be re-reimbursed, when they can persevere with an approved system that doesn't require them to do that. Considering the pain to those that should actually be benefiting right now, you could argue that to use the approved system in its current form is crazy when there may be an alternative that is better put together, but the above seems to be the factor that would influence their decision far more, don't you think?

Yes - the site did that for a while on Saturday morning, when it appeared to be responding well first thing, then wouldn't accept a valid password mid morning but would happily allow a password reset then still not let you in, then sorted itself later. I assumed they were doing yet more maintenance at that time. But today its bound to be load issues again. Good to see all those updates are having such a great effect!

Just wondering if anyone can give experience on lead time from creating new order this week, to e-codes actually going out and the order showing as Fulfilled. I've seen 3 days on a small order. Admin site responsiveness has clearly improved, but the issue will continue to be the FSM site that parents use. That Trustpilot page makes for painful reading on that side of it if you have a look!

Yup - same experience for me. Although I was going to leave it, my curiosity got the better of me mid evening and tried again. The site was clearly a lot more responsive and the last step took the test order to paid. When the vouchers will finally reach the recipient is entirely another matter but at least I'm reassured the order was correct!

Yes - saw that earlier. I'm giving up for today. Have a pending test order that is small with only 3 pupils on it, that falls into the "on or before 17/4" category. Have tried 3 times today and it still gives an approval error every single time. With no support available, there is no way to be sure whether the error is for another reason. So until, and IF, it goes through successfully, I'll never know. The fact that some appear to be having success makes me think there is something wrong with it, but it all looks fine when I check it. I'm certainly not about to call them up and sit in a queue for hours to then be told "keep trying". So will see if any different tomorrow.

Well I managed to get in. Waited patiently as I stepped through and as it creaked to get me to the point of accessing our first pending order. Waited even more patiently as the order page refreshed enough simply to be able to tick acceptance of T&Cs and hit Approve. Waited and waited until, yes, exactly the same error. Looks like they need to shut the site down until they can fully resolve this, or simply accept they don't have a viable platform and hold their hands up to the Gov to make alternate arrangements!

Oh yes - site now says "Your platform is temporarily offline. We will be back up and running as soon as possible." Let's see how temporary that is. Am curious about the Gmail antispam comment - are you implying that you are getting the vouchers sent to the pupils' school e-mail accounts, rather than direct to their parent/guardian e-mails? And is it consistent - like every single one ends up in the Spam folder?

Same issues already reported - even simple small csv upload keeps spinning. Might be right re. Smoothwall but haven't tried. And same error on Approval no matter how many times tried for a "pending" order. Gov is facing a major embarrassment here. Don't see these as teething troubles - the provider's technology cannot cope with the load and with the current situation, provider simply doesn't have enough staff to cope with the support queries, so is simply not responding. Gov should have put their eggs in more than one basket and shared the load. Wonde have a working platform that could have probably done the job much more effectively, but for whatever reasons are not approved. One of these cases where we can only hope someone waves a magic technology wand over the weekend, and it stops creaking. Otherwise we will all be continuing to fend off enquiries from desperate households that think each school is dragging their heels!

Thanks for the quick reply 3s-gtech. Based on your blog, I was going to try the change to NT AUTHORITY/SYSTEM perms in Management Studio, but since I'm no expert with that, I'm not sure I'm looking in the right place, or seeing what I should be seeing. I opened the SIMS db=>Security=>Users and looked at Properties for NT AUTHORITY/SYSTEM and the Membership page of that. But these are the tick boxes. I guess I'm in the wrong place? #### ignore that. Have found how to add it after further searching on SupportNet. Lo and behold, I'm in business. 3.7 updated. 3.8 going through as I type. Interestingly, I found KB119666 on SupportNet which includes the line: "We have included the SQL patch 'SOLUS3 SQL2012 NT Authority Patch.rar' inside the ZIP file for Solus3 installations experiencing issues with SQL2012". Probably my naivety, if that happens to be their fix for this issue, could they not have pushed that out on S3 so that users would at least be aware and see it, and know they might need it? If there is a known problem which has caused some sites to have to re-install S3 from scratch because no solution was forthcoming, to get round it, and other sites like ours that are only now hitting it when they would like to move on to 3.8 but necessarily it needs to move to 3.7 first, perhaps there has been time to help users out???? Grrrr!!!

Hoping someone might have some ideas on this before I or LA support waste time on it. Having had a belly full of Solus 3 over the last years, I have tended to keep hands off for a while now - not touching S3 itself and getting it to do the required SIMS updates as needed for Census etc, which admittedly have increasingly become less of a headache. However, I realised that our site is lagging behind on S3 and decided to kick it to update itself to 3.8 the other night through auto-deploy. In the morning I discover that had failed. Upon investigation I see that the failure actually occurred where it was trying to do the first update from the 3.6.94.0 version we were at, to 3.7.161.0 which we missed, before it should have gone on to do 3.8. Even though I was loathe to waste time I don't have on this thing yet again, I intervened and did a manual update deploy of 3.7.161 itself, after first re-booting the server to a clean state just to be sure. Still failed with a "tolerance not met for target Solus 3 database" message in the GUI. I did it again and sat watching it go through each stage and it is that last point i.e. it does the server instance name patch, the .Net 4.5, the 3.7.147 agent stages 1-3 ok, but stage 4 to update the database to 3.7.161.0 fails. The agent on the server just momentarily says there are 1 or more errors but gives no info. The process then completes roll back and completes with failure, so I'm stuck at 3.6.94. The log at the point of failure confirms the check that causes the tolerance not met message, but as far I i interpret, that simply checks some flag to say "is the db reporting the right version errr no!", and so triggers that message. The log lines are below. As far as I am concerned, I'm trying to update versions that have long since been the replacements for earlier versions that may have had problems when they first came out, so its reasonable to assume it would all go fine. We have not changed anything I'm aware of as far as the server setup i.e. its the same 64bit Windows Server 2012 with SQL Server 2012. I looked in the ProgramData/Capita/Solus3/logs/ds_systemlog also but that didn't seem to provide any useful info on what has caused the failure on the database deploy. Is there somewhere else I should be looking to provide a clue? Or is there some files/archive that it would be worth clearing to give it a chance to do things cleanly - that's just grasping at straws, but I'm concerned we are looking at a clean S3 install to get this moving forward, which is just the pits and should be wholly unnecessary :-( I searched through the forum including this post, but my eyes didn't catch any golden nugget of known issue which I may be hitting here. Thanks. =================== Log lines at failure: 2015-01-10 15:22:37.5917|*** 2015-01-10 15:22:37.5917|*** Deploying Solus 3 - 3.7.161.0 to Solus 3 Database (64Bit) targets at SOLUS3 System (99999999-9999999) 2015-01-10 15:22:37.5917|*** 2015-01-10 15:22:37.6073|ds|Info|1 agent target(s) found for Solus 3 Database at site SOLUS3 System.|SetAgentTargetsForThisDeployment() 2015-01-10 15:22:37.6229|oda-sims-01|Info|Target version 3.6.94.0, expected target version 3.7.161.0, update will be deployed|ProcessAgentTargets() 2015-01-10 15:22:37.6697|oda-sims-01|Info|Agent is available for target id 4.|AgentIsAvailable() 2015-01-10 15:22:37.6697|oda-sims-01|Debug|Throttling - Download slot now available|AgentIsAvailable() 2015-01-10 15:22:37.6697|oda-sims-01|Debug|Target id 4 instructed to deploy.|Execute() 2015-01-10 15:22:37.6853|ds|Debug|CreateAgentPackageSiteRecord updating _agentTargeted for agent target id 4|SendExecuteCommandToAgent() 2015-01-10 15:22:38.2001|oda-sims-01|Info|Started downloading package 'Solus 3 - 3.7.161.0 (Solus 3 Database solus3_deployment_server)'|UpdateProgress() 2015-01-10 15:22:38.2001|oda-sims-01|Info|Successfully finished downloading update 'Solus 3 - 3.7.161.0 (Solus 3 Database solus3_deployment_server)'. (File had already been downloaded.)|UpdateProgress() 2015-01-10 15:22:38.2001|oda-sims-01|Debug|Throttling - Downloaded update, download slot has been cleared|b__0() 2015-01-10 15:22:56.4073|oda-sims-01|Info|Tgt 4, Pkg 6a7c81e6-693e-4717-ba75-d29d6134d23c, TasksetRunner|Result was Ignored for task 'Upgrade database' with message 'Task does not implement rollback strategy.'|UpdateProgress() 2015-01-10 15:22:56.4229|oda-sims-01|Info|Tgt 4, Pkg 6a7c81e6-693e-4717-ba75-d29d6134d23c, TasksetRunner|Running task, 'Upgrade database', in Backup mode.|UpdateProgress() 2015-01-10 15:22:56.4853|oda-sims-01|Info|Tgt 4, Pkg 6a7c81e6-693e-4717-ba75-d29d6134d23c, TasksetRunner|Running task, 'Upgrade database', in Install mode.|UpdateProgress() 2015-01-10 15:23:13.4910|oda-sims-01|Info|Tgt 4, Pkg 6a7c81e6-693e-4717-ba75-d29d6134d23c, TasksetRunner|Running task, 'Upgrade database', in Rollback mode.|UpdateProgress() 2015-01-10 15:23:13.5222|oda-sims-01|Info|Tgt 4, Pkg 6a7c81e6-693e-4717-ba75-d29d6134d23c, TasksetRunner|Result was Ignored for task 'Upgrade database' with message 'Task does not implement rollback strategy.'|UpdateProgress() 2015-01-10 15:23:15.2539|oda-sims-01|Info|Tgt 4, Pkg 6a7c81e6-693e-4717-ba75-d29d6134d23c, One or more errors occurred.|UpdateProgress() 2015-01-10 15:23:17.7657|ds|Info|Agent 4, target id oda-sims-01 reported target version number 3.6.94.0, expected target version is 3.7.161.0.|WaitForAgentResponse() 2015-01-10 15:23:17.7657|oda-sims-01|Info|Agent has responded|Execute() 2015-01-10 15:23:27.6722|ds|Info|Waiting for target Solus 3 Database to complete deployment for 1 sites 99999999-9999-9999-9999-999999999999|BackgroundWorkerDoWork() 2015-01-10 15:23:27.7970|ds|Info|Deployment to site SOLUS3 System (99999999-9999-9999-9999-999999999999) has been completed.|RunInternal() 2015-01-10 15:23:27.7970|ds|Info|Deployment plan has failed to install at site SOLUS3 System 99999999-9999999|RunInternal() 2015-01-10 15:23:37.6880|*** 2015-01-10 15:23:37.6880|*** Checking tolerance for Solus 3 Database (64Bit) targets 2015-01-10 15:23:37.6880|*** 2015-01-10 15:23:37.6880|ds|Info|Site count: 1, no failed site deployments: 1, required tolerance: 100, calculated tolerance: 0, tolerance passed: False|CheckTolerance() 2015-01-10 15:23:37.6880|ds|Info|Tolerance not met for target Solus 3 Database, deployment stopping.|CheckTolerance()

same for us currently - A2C connects to all others but Edexcel, which gives a server error. No doubt it is being resolved, but not good for them.

Do your pre-admissions have status now of "Accepted". If so, try modifying the report that works for current Y7, so that the "effective date" is after their start date in September, and it should report on them as Y7's then. I assume if the record for pre-admissions is populated in the same places as the ones for current pupils, that ought to report them the same way. The big question is extent of data in those pre-admission records e.g. has someone imported a lot of CTF's from your feeder schools, otherwise the record themselves may be not as full as you might hope. One idea at least, without spending much time thinking about it :-)

My guess is that they have finally, finally, finally made the Read Only column just like the Hidden column, when you look at a template i.e. you can just toggle the Hidden, but currently you have to open and look at Column details in order to set the Read Only. Hopefully another poor piece of UI design finally addressed :-)

from Teachers2Parents aka BehaviourWatch. Looks like a new one - wondered if anyone had seen it in action or had experience of the vendor? Thanks.

I've always assumed it was the LA's responsibility to produce the ATF. ATF's are then made available on S2S (under Download=>Download Admissions File) - have you checked there? However, even if you get the early ATF and import those details in to the MIS, it does make most sense to request CTF's from your feeder schools for all the admissions you are then aware of now or in the remaining weeks. This will cover the ones not in the original ATF, and ensure that you have the most up to date info for the others. Obviously if you do that, and can cover all of your admissions, then the ATF is irrelevant.

Details below, but as you will see, you should not need to worry about whether that patch is installed, if your SIMS is up to date. Notes SIMS .net | Routines | Data In | CTF | Import CTF Imported CTF file containing FSM history but data not importing Free School Meals FSM Advice Generic patch 16758 is available, which will be included in Spring 2012 release of SIMS .net.

Had a demo of that a while back and agree it does a lot but to my mind it still doesn't justify that price when you see what else is on the market. I guess some places justify it if they do not have a data or analysis guru of some sort in house, and it would really be replacing the skills of someone like that, so if they compare salary v license costs, perhaps it makes sense. It did not seem like a tool for teachers to engage with data, as the interface seemed way too fiddly and full of too many drop down options to achieve anything quickly - so more a tool to aid distribution of summaries. That said, it did have a facility for teacher/department feedback on the data, similar to what 4Matrix do, so I assume they target it to that audience of users too. 4Matrix are now stating KS3 support for September, although originally that was aimed for first half of this year, so we'll see. But once it does that and includes their flightpath model, it will be a damn fine piece of software. There's SISRA of course, and if you are in a position to use a new system for assessments, tracking and reporting, Go4Schools has much of that analysis built in. There are others, but those ones appear to have gained most popularity.

Probably unfair to say, cos who knows whether they increment through the numbers one by one or release each one, but when you look at patch # 18180 released, what was it Monday this week?, and then see today or perhaps it was late yesterday, # 18205, a layman could conclude they have had to patch 25 different product issues in that space of time. Worrying? :-)

Mixed experience here - all original deployed that were online were fine. Those offline, seems most did not auto update although all showed they had downloaded. Re-deploy as each block of ones came online or later individual ones sorts them out as expected. Just the intervention not expected or desired! Oddly, still seeing machines that complete a successful update, then showing messages for a time afterwards of repeated re-downloads, even though the system should know there is absolutely no need to do so. Doesn't affect anything - just shows something not right somewhere (and this after server or S3 itself has had a re-start). Still - intervention pretty much concluded within 48 hours, so sadly thats a positive result ;-)