V8.0.3 : You connected the 'XX' extension via an obsolete file

Gantt
#1

I have just started migrating from version 7.1.13 to 8.0.3.
I’m currently using the Gantt global variable to instance multiple gantts.
To do so I call:

Gantt.getGanttInstance(configObject);

Where my configObject looks something like this:

{
    plugins: {
        marker: true,
        export_api: true,
        auto_scheduling: true,
        critical_path: true
    },
    ...
}

I’m currently getting the warning

You connected the ‘XX’ extension via an obsolete file.
To fix it, you need to remove the obsolete file and connect the extension via the plugins method: plugins Gantt Docs

for each of those plugins. I go to the migration docs and it only says to remove the html reference to the old export api file, which I have already done.
Is there something wrong with how I’m setting up the gantt object?

#2

Hello,
Starting from the 7.0 version, you need to enable extensions by using the plugins method. The message is shown if you connected other extensions via the files:
https://docs.dhtmlx.com/gantt/migrating.html#6370

In the previous versions, the plugins method didn’t return the list of the enabled extensions. But the dev team added that feature in the 8.0 version. And in addition to that, they added a way to check if you enabled all extensions correctly (only via the plugins method), or you still connected the extension files from the older Gantt version.

However, it seems that the message is always displayed if you enable extensions from the getGanttInstance config.
I was able to reproduce that issue:
https://snippet.dhtmlx.com/481fvwvy

Thank you for letting us know about it! I added it as a bug to our internal bug-tracker. The dev team will fix it in the future.

1 Like
#3

Hello,
The dev team fixed the bug with the false warning about the connected extensions:
https://docs.dhtmlx.com/gantt/whatsnew.html#x8318x90x8319x:~:text=Fix%20incorrect%20warnings%20triggered%20by%20enabling%20extensions%20via%20the%20gantt.getGanttInstance%20configuration

You can see that the bug is no longer reproduced in the following sample:
https://snippet.dhtmlx.com/481fvwvy