Answers.Body: <p>There was a set of nasty bugs that fit the description of what you're talking about throughout 2015:</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://issues.civicrm.org/jira/browse/CRM-18155">https://issues.civicrm.org/jira/browse/CRM-18155</a></p>
  
  <p><a href="https://issues.civicrm.org/jira/browse/CRM-18435">https://issues.civicrm.org/jira/browse/CRM-18435</a></p>
  
  <p>CRM-18435 in particular is getting a fix in the August 3rd release of CiviCRM.  You can patch it now if you know how (patch is linked from the ticket above) but otherwise upgrade next week.</p>
  
  <p>To give a big-picture overview - smart groups rely on the underlying form (in this case, Search Builder) not changing.  For a while, there wasn't really awareness that changing the form would break smart groups.  In fact, I have a patch that hasn't yet made it into CiviCRM <a href="https://issues.civicrm.org/jira/browse/CRM-18460">here</a> because someone pointed out that a benign-seeming change could break a smart group.</p>
  
  <p>Now that there's awareness (and automated tests!) around that, those issues are going away.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-22T22:37:43.850Z
Answers.Text: Thanks Jon, I think that makes sense that the open issue is the one affecting us.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Lars SG
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-22T22:38:23.833Z
Answers.Text: And the patch you have pending would be great! We've run into that frustration a few times.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Lars SG
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-22T20:40:26.280Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-07-22T20:40:26.280Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jon G - Megaphone Tech
Body: <p>We've been using a number of smart groups created via the search builder and from time to time, the smart group criteria disappear or are changed. For instance, we had five similar smart groups based on membership in five different groups with a certain contact type. At some point, the criteria changed for all five smart groups to membership in group 0.</p>
  
  <p>We've had occasional similar issues for years, with no obvious trigger for the change. Does anyone have any idea what might be happening? Has anyone else had the same issue? </p>
  
Tags: <smartgroups><search-builder>
Title: Smart Group criteria disappearing or changing
ThreadText: # Smart Group criteria disappearing or changing
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-07-22)
  
  We've been using a number of smart groups created via the search builder and from time to time, the smart group criteria disappear or are changed. For instance, we had five similar smart groups based on membership in five different groups with a certain contact type. At some point, the criteria changed for all five smart groups to membership in group 0.
  
  We've had occasional similar issues for years, with no obvious trigger for the change. Does anyone have any idea what might be happening? Has anyone else had the same issue?
  
  **Tags:** smartgroups, search-builder
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2016-07-22. Score: 4
  
  There was a set of nasty bugs that fit the description of what you're talking about throughout 2015:
  
  <https://issues.civicrm.org/jira/browse/CRM-18155>
  
  <https://issues.civicrm.org/jira/browse/CRM-18435>
  
  CRM-18435 in particular is getting a fix in the August 3rd release of CiviCRM. You can patch it now if you know how (patch is linked from the ticket above) but otherwise upgrade next week.
  
  To give a big-picture overview - smart groups rely on the underlying form (in this case, Search Builder) not changing. For a while, there wasn't really awareness that changing the form would break smart groups. In fact, I have a patch that hasn't yet made it into CiviCRM [here](https://issues.civicrm.org/jira/browse/CRM-18460) because someone pointed out that a benign-seeming change could break a smart group.
  
  Now that there's awareness (and automated tests!) around that, those issues are going away.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks Jon, I think that makes sense that the open issue is the one affecting us.  
  > **username_0**: And the patch you have pending would be great! We've run into that frustration a few times.  
  
  ---
  
  