The new update changes all <figure> tags to <picture> tags, even if the user explicitly wants <figure> tags (which is the correct default tag).
This is breaking tons of sites that have been using figure tags.
15 Likes
Also the builder does not update if i change some things in panels related to images.
@thomas do you do ANY tests before releasing a new version? After updating the builder NO HTML changes are allowed in front end. This is so easy to test automatically. Just do it.
Sorry, but I am pissed off.
Funny enough I wrote a post a couple versions ago which highlighted what I view as an increase in critical / high-impacting bugs in recent versions, suggesting to me at least a lack of automated test cases being used. Never got a reply although I didnât really expect one, it was written more to be an open forum for the Bricks team to show them what weâve observed lately.
Feel free to post in there if youâd like about your testing complaints⊠An observed increase of uncaught (sometimes high-impact) defects, a request and offer to expand test cases for future releases
4 Likes
Hey Kevin,
thanks for your report. Weâre on it. Sorry for the inconveniences.
Best,
André
1 Like
Please re-download 1.8.5 (https://bricksbuilder.io/account/) and let us know here if this fixes the issue. Thank you.
2 Likes
@thomas Just a thought, but shouldnât this be a 1.8.5.1 or 1.8.6? Who knows how many people may have updated before you rectified this and the auto-update wonât work since its the same version.
Thoughts?
10 Likes
This. Using the same version number as a release already out in the wild is asking for trouble.
5 Likes
Absolutely! Should be a 1.8.5.1 hotfix. Iâve never seen the same version number re-uploaded anywhere else in software.
3 Likes
@ocbroadband If you following a semantic versioning system then 1.8.5.1 should never exist
- MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes
- MINOR version when you add functionality in a backward compatible manner
- PATCH version when you make backward compatible bug fixes
1.8.5 should really be a patch and all previous 1.8 updates should have been a new MINOR version at the least, but really as they are introducing big new features they should be MAJOR releases.
I would take a wild guess that there is something planned for 2.0 and they donât want to wait to release these features which is why we are getting smaller update versioning numbers.
To mitigate things, these releases could be versioned in the hundreds which would allow for smaller hotfixes with a proper release number. I.e. this initial release would be 1.8.500 and the hot fix 1.8.501 etc. That allows up to 99 hotfixes per âreleaseâ. 1.8.6 would become 1.8.600 etc.
I would prefer to see a move to proper semantic versioning from 2.0 onwards as that seems a perfect time to implement
3 Likes
The selected tag is rendered correct in front end now.
But the sources panel is shown even if âfigureâ tag is selected:
1 Like
Hey Marco,
thanks for the recommendation.
We decided to always show the sources to make it easier for users who arenât familiar with the whole picture > source setup but âsimply want to show different images per breakpointâ.
Instead you will notice that the HTML tag selector disappears as soon as you add at least one source as in this case we automatically use the picture tag.
Best,
André
Okay, thanks for the explanation - even if I would prefer it the other way around. 
@dan, I think you missed the actual point of my post. The naming is irrelavent and should be whatever is needed to make sure everyone got the âupdated/correctedâ version.
My point was that it was released in initial release state as 1.8.5, and then was fixed after it was available for I presume several hours and updated with the same exact version, 1.8.5. There are people who download and install as soon as it is released, which would mean that âsomeâ people may have updated to the pre-fixed version via the WP update feature, and the âfixedâ version would not get re-applied because the version is the same. So either downgrading back to 1.8.4 and then reperforming the update again would fix it, or manually downloading the file and uploading it to the site would resolve the descrepancy.
Yes, versioning should follow a standard, but that wasnât the point of my post.
1 Like
I saw your point, I was merely stating/explaining that your suggestion of 1.8.5.1 should not ever exist and explained a way how it could work if Bricks didnât want to move to a proper semantic versioning number. More so for anyone else reading too.
Bricks has always released hot fixes with the same number. I think there was one where we had 3 hot fixes all under the same number. Very confusing indeed.
Re-downloaded 1.8.5 as you suggested. The builder does not load, only displays a blank white screen. Disabled all plugins, same results. Tried creating a new site from scratch, same results. Please reference the same problem another user is reporting WAIT: Loading Issue After Updating Bricks Builder from Version 1.8.4 to 1.8.5 - #4 by Lenglemetz .
Please do a more complete job of testing your software, and again, slow down on the rapid pace, fix the bugs first. No fun explaining to clients why their sites break constantly with each upgrade of Bricks.
2 Likes
Hey @AmparoLarrea,
the problem you are mentioning has been reported here.
Please email us temporary admin login details to your site to help@bricksbuilder.io as soon as possible, so we can investigate this issue.
Best,
André
Hey,
now I updated one of my main websites from 1.8.4 to 1.8.5 (via update in WP, not downloading)
And I checked the FIGURE tags before and after the update on 3 images and all is fine.
So I can confirm from my site, that the issue is solved. 
Screenshots of Images BEFORE updates with FIGURE tag:
Screenshots of SAME Images AFTER update with FIGURE tag:
2 Likes
Why is this a thing again? This type of dilemma is what gave Bricks a certain 'Donât trust updates" reputation in the past. I know I have voiced my opinion before, but I figure an adjustment is necessary.
First, Bricks Team, we know you are talented developers, but your ad-hoc integrations might not benefit âagencyâ type of users this way.
As @ocbroadband mentioned this fix should NOT be a 1.8.5. and as @dan identified there is a certain structure for updates.
As for WHY you decided to change up something that did not need to change is another question as @digitalgravy reported. Other software often does this by using depreciation methods. That gives users a way to change and/or provide feedback. While they are slower they certainly work, because they donât break things.
@thomas I urge you to also think of âagencyâ style users that build more than one site with your software. I mean if you want us to use it that is. Its certainly not a requirement but a plea. Maybe you are not interested in those users. I donât know.
If that is the case, think of your updates and a lowly employee clicking âupdateâ in their [insert update tool here] or clients that WE have diligently trained to always update their sites doing the same. And just wait for the calls, emails, and text messages to pour in. I mean you do see that the moment you make a mistake. Right here. Now. You have to take a lot of time out of your schedule to deal with this right away. Maybe this doesnât bother you.
Others have mentioned CI and automated tests, and I donât know if you use those, but I have a simpler solution: advance version numbers and add an a/b suffix (you did this before). Until its considered stable. Slower, but stable.
This has one more benefit you can think of in terms of marketing. Higher version numbers - an like everything in marketing â higher numbers must mean better⊠So just only use the x.x.134 for fixes, x.9.x for features/minor, and 2.x.x for major version changes. Now you can user 100âs of fix numbers, and adding new features in a release will bring those minor/feature numbers up rather quickly.
Where is the benefit? Software that is v13 seems much more mature and thought-out then version v1.4, no? So maybe this is something for you, and Iâm sure there might be more, we as outsiders are not aware of, but maybe this could alleviate some update hesitation or fear. Or not break existing site.
I for one would welcome this. Have a nice day/evening, S
1 Like