reseller data inconsistency!

[silvan58]

Hi at all.
I'am not able to solve this problem: when I try to change some values to a particular reseller from admin, I receive the same message 'RESELLER DATA INCONSISTENCY!'. This account at the begginnig had -1 into the mail accounts limit.
The ISPCP version is 1.0.0 RC5 build 20080614,
os is Debian Etch 4.1 and the server is a Xen virtual machine.
Thanx in advance

[sci2tech]

(10-16-2008 07:20 PM)silvan58 Wrote:  Hi at all.
I'am not able to solve this problem: when I try to change some values to a particular reseller from admin, I receive the same message 'RESELLER DATA INCONSISTENCY!'. This account at the begginnig had -1 into the mail accounts limit.
The ISPCP version is 1.0.0 RC5 build 20080614,
os is Debian Etch 4.1 and the server is a Xen virtual machine.
Thanx in advance

This is a bug that was fixed in trunk. Consider upgrade or edit in database resellers record.

[silvan58]

(10-16-2008 08:01 PM)sci2tech Wrote:  

(10-16-2008 07:20 PM)silvan58 Wrote:  Hi at all.
I'am not able to solve this problem: when I try to change some values to a particular reseller from admin, I receive the same message 'RESELLER DATA INCONSISTENCY!'. This account at the begginnig had -1 into the mail accounts limit.
The ISPCP version is 1.0.0 RC5 build 20080614,
os is Debian Etch 4.1 and the server is a Xen virtual machine.
Thanx in advance

This is a bug that was fixed in trunk. Consider upgrade or edit in database resellers record.

I have just edit the database to modify values. In order to know: the problem is caused by the '-1' into the value mail accounts limit?
I think to create another reseller ( without -1 in mail accounts limit ) and move the user under it. This could be a solution?
Many thanks, best regards.

[xister]

(10-16-2008 07:20 PM)silvan58 Wrote:  I have just edit the database to modify values. In order to know: the problem is caused by the '-1' into the value mail accounts limit?
I think to create another reseller ( without -1 in mail accounts limit ) and move the user under it. This could be a solution?
Many thanks, best regards.

right!