Changes to make in custom themes when upgrading from 3.4 to 3.9

At this moment I'm upgrading an existing nopcommerce application from 3.4 to 3.9

All steps from http://docs.nopcommerce.com/display/en/Upgrading+nopCommerce are followed

In all web.config files from custom Themes and Custom Plugins the MVC version is updated to: System.Web.Mvc, Version=5.2.3.0

The following is done on custom Themes:

All usings of using Nop.Web.Framework.UI.Captcha; are replaced by Nop.Web.Framework.Security.Captcha;

In AdminHeaderlinks.cshtml and HeaderLinks.cshtml Model.ImpersonatedCustomerEmailUsername is replaced by Model.ImpersonatedCustomerName


Missing ResponsiveDesignSupported is updated from    

var supportResponsive = EngineContext.Current.Resolve<StoreInformationSettings>().ResponsiveDesignSupported;

to

var supportResponsive = true;

At this moment I'm stuck at the following error
Compiler Error Message: CS1061: 'Nop.Web.Models.Catalog.TopMenuModel' does not contain a definition for 'RecentlyAddedProductsEnabled' and no extension method 'RecentlyAddedProductsEnabled' accepting a first argument of type 'Nop.Web.Models.Catalog.TopMenuModel' could be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?)

Is there a way in version 3.9 to check if RecentlyAddedProducts are enabled or doesn't it exist in this version and should all RecentlyAddedProductsEnabled checks be removed?

there are so many changes between these 2 versions

my best suggestion is to use git:

1. download the 3.9 version and commit to git
2. delete all views and copy the views from the 3.4 version and commit
3. copy and past the 3.9 views on top of the 3.4
4. follow all the changes and apply to your new theme

Hi Dario

Just rename all items RecentlyAddedProducts to NewProducts, that should do the trick.

I've got a step further to remove all RecentlyAddedProductsEnabled checks in the files since we haven't used it.

Since I saw that the plugins weren't correctly built I rebuilt them and saw 772 errors. The best way for me is to start over again. I'll follow @hezyz suggestion.