No HTML email

[rogersugarsugar]

sugarCRM 4.5.1d patched to 4.5.1e

There are a few places where there are references to HTML email. When you compose an email, or set up a template, or edit a signature from the account configuration. The online help text for the template indicates that there should be a down arrow right below the "body" (message body) label, but I never see it. If I check the box for "send html message" I get absolutely nothing in the body. Any place where you would expect to see a spot to enter html, there is only a big blank spot. I have found no way to invoke an HTML editor.

We are evaluating the OS version. Our people want to send HTML messages and have an IMG tag in their signatures that references an image on our website (rather than imbedding the image in every email).

Help appreciated. Thanks.

[sacramentojoe]

It would be here if you had it.
See attached image
I'm pretty sure that they do a check and see if they are loading a FCKEditor object, if the object is an instance of FCKEditor, then they load the WYSIWYG. If they don't find it, then you get a blank box and you'll need to enter the html
You don't need the html or body tags, just everything in between.

[rogersugarsugar]

It would be here if you had it.
See attached image
I'm pretty sure that they do a check and see if they are loading a FCKEditor object, if the object is an instance of FCKEditor, then they load the WYSIWYG. If they don't find it, then you get a blank box and you'll need to enter the html
You don't need the html or body tags, just everything in between.

I don't know anything about an FCKEditor.

Where your image shows the delta is where I expected to find it, but it's not there. Rather, the "Send HTML" checkbox is there, and checked, and below a large blank area is another checkbox for "edit text". If you check the latter, the former disappears and you can type text in. But if you send it with the "Send HTML" box checked, the recipient gets only the headers - no body!

[chapado]

I'm having the same problem with a 4.5.0 installation upgraded to 4.5.1e
edit: it works in internet explorer - just takes a really long time to load the fckeditor. In firefox it doesn't load at all - just a grey box
edit2: did a full installation to another folder and its working properly in firefox and internet explorer - loads a lot quicker too.
Maybe its an issue with the upgrade?

[rogersugarsugar]

Okay, I now have an explanation, but not a solution.

(Ended up blowing away the upgraded installation and installing full installation.)

While setting up my boss' configuration, I had him bring up the signature editor, and he actually got the editor.

He's using Windows. I'm using Linux.

Is there not a suitable HTML editor that SugarCRM could bring up for this? Where would I configure this if there was?

Thanks.

[Checkmarq]

Same problem here.

FCKeditor worked fine before, but after the upgrade to 4.5.1e we run into problems. However, I also suspect that the latest JAVA update on windows might be the one causing problems. We have some MSIE 7 that works, some not. Same for firefox and safari.

I sugguest that SugarCRM should update to a more recent version of FCKeditor ASAP. All browsers that are having problems with SugarCRM html editor, works without any problem on the FCKeditor testpage:

http://www.fckeditor.net/nightly/browsers_test.html

This is a nightly build of 2.5, which is not final released yet, but I see SugarCRM is still on 2.2 version of FCKeditor, while 2.4.x is stable for a while now...

Knowing this, I really like to 'upgrade' the FCKeditor components to 2.4.x or even 2.5 in SugarCRM. Does anyone have any idea how this can be done? I'm just simply thinking of replacing the .js files, but I guess that's not working in the end...

[rogersugarsugar]

the FCKeditor testpage:

http://www.fckeditor.net/nightly/browsers_test.html

Before I realized you were on indows, I did a quick search and found the FCKeditor in the sugarcrm include directory.

It does work for windows clients, but not for Linux clients.

I tried the testpage, and it worked fine for Firefox on Linux (CentOS 5.0).

I guess I just have to wait...