On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Wipe_Out wrote:
> On 2 October 2012 19:57, Earnie Boyd <
earnie@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Wipe_Out <
wipe_out@users.sourceforge.net>
>> wrote:
>> > On 2 October 2012 17:59, Michael Prasuhn <
mike@mikeyp.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> How are you updating the field?
>> >> __________________
>> >> Michael Prasuhn
>> >>
http://mikeyp.net
>> >>
>> >
>> > Directly in the database..
>> >
>> > I know its bad and it means none of the Drupal hooks run but its the
>> > only
>> > way we could do this one particular update easily and in testing other
>> > than
>> > it not displaying immediately it doesn't seem to have any adverse
>> > effects..
>>
>> By directly do you mean using SQL or node_load/node_save? You should
>> never use SQL to directly update the node. You may programmatically
>> update it using node_load, modify object parameter then follow with
>> node_save. This allows all the other node hooks to operate properly.
>
> Yes I know but in this case we didn't have a choice so had to try it.. Its
> just updating a datetime field with a new value.. The testing we did didn't
> reveal any issues other than the fact that the cache needs to be cleared for
> the new values to show in Drupal..
>
> Originally we tried updating with a CSV through the feeds module but there
> is a timezone bug in feeds that stops this working..
The node_save() would DTRT with the cache record.