1(0).0(0).FT1.00361.[1], instead of 1(0).0(0).FT1(0).00361(0).[1] — in my experience, I’ve found that the engine tolerates this as long as that line in the xlate is never edited. Otherwise, if you touch it, you have to update it.
This is a pretty old clause in the xlate that was around before our 5.4 -> 5.7 upgrade, so I’m suspicious that the upgrade steps for our test and prod boxes may have been different.
Is there normally an upgrade step that we may have missed that should’ve incorporated the vendor’s changing pathname?
If there’s not, I’m interested in how other shops approach this. If it’s not apparent in testing, live and let live until a change is needed? Review all code and update as part of the upgrade testing?
Thanks!!