# Template not consistent **URL:** \ **Category:** Ignition\ **Tags:** ignition81, vision\ **Created:** [August 19, 2025, 11:27pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/template-not-consistent/109967 "2025-08-19T23:27:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![carter.doud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ed8c4c/32.png) [@carter.doud](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/carter.doud)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2025, 11:27pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/template-not-consistent/109967/1 "2025-08-19T23:27:35Z")
I posted earlier today about using a template repeater, I switched to just using nested templates with no repeater since the repeater cannot utilize UDT’s. I have 10 nested templates in the parent template, but only 9 of them work properly. They appear to be exactly the same as far as properties and bindings. The first template that I imported doesn’t work quite right. It appears to be a problem with the template itself, as changing the tag bindings breaks the new ones. I have tried deleting and replacing the template with no success. The problem is that the timer component doesn’t write to the tag, which breaks some of the logic that runs off of that tag. The other templates which are exactly the same are able to write to tags, including the one meant for the broken template. The broken template cannot write to any of the tags. Any suggestions on something to check? ---
**Author:** ![bschroeder](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/bschroeder/32/13260_2.png) [@bschroeder](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/bschroeder)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2025, 11:32pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/template-not-consistent/109967/2 "2025-08-19T23:32:44Z")
You are going to need to post some code and screen shots of the templates, bindings etc… ---
**Author:** ![carter.doud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ed8c4c/32.png) [@carter.doud](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/carter.doud)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2025, 11:36pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/template-not-consistent/109967/3 "2025-08-19T23:36:59Z")
![Screenshot 2025-08-19 163345](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/original/3X/7/1/716097eff1bde442bdf306862dc2fee54127e08e.png) ![Screenshot 2025-08-19 163524](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/original/3X/4/2/42cbe5ab6763850c48f45e068dedfc583e63ebc0.png) ![Screenshot 2025-08-19 163407](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/original/3X/e/e/eeb712f95f3537f477837e59b00dc32e74a5e73b.png) ![Screenshot 2025-08-19 163359](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/original/3X/f/e/fe6c18a42edc8905fc2d011503553aa79f5317bd.png) Here are the base template and parent template, along with the bindings. ---
**Author:** ![pturmel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/pturmel/32/3295_2.png) [@pturmel](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/pturmel)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2025, 11:37pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/template-not-consistent/109967/4 "2025-08-19T23:37:02Z")
> [@carter.doud](#): > > the repeater cannot utilize UDT’s This is simply not true. Pass a tagpath string into your templates in dataset mode on the repeater, and use indirect binding within the template to retrieve the UDT. Now, if you meant it cannot pass UDT _ **properties** _, then you are correct. This is one of the reasons you should never use UDT **properties**. Templates can only **ever** use UDT properties when instantiated one at a time. That templates can take UDT properties is a fundamental design flaw, for which IA staff hangs their heads in shame (sometimes takes an adult beverage or two to spur the confession). Solely to permit tag drag-n-drop in the designer. (Fixed in Perspective, which allows tagpath-style drag-n-drop.) ---
**Author:** ![carter.doud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ed8c4c/32.png) [@carter.doud](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/carter.doud)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2025, 11:42pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/template-not-consistent/109967/5 "2025-08-19T23:42:34Z")
ok, I had done all my property bindings by adding the UDT as a property and calling upon the tags in reference to the UDT property. Are you saying that it should be rewritten to where all variables used are individual properties rather than just calling on the UDT? That was my original plan, but it feels clunky. ---
**Author:** ![pturmel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/pturmel/32/3295_2.png) [@pturmel](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/pturmel)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2025, 11:43pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/template-not-consistent/109967/6 "2025-08-19T23:43:47Z")
> [@carter.doud](#): > > used are individual properties rather than just calling on the UDT? Yes. Though you **can** indirect bind a UDT property from a tag path, you shouldn't. Individual properties are much more efficient. Someday, I'll identify the IA old hands who thought this was great back in the day, and feature their publicity photos in the "be honest--be honest--thank you" memes. 🤣 ---
**Author:** ![robertm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea5d25/32.png) [@robertm](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/robertm)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2025, 10:46am UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/template-not-consistent/109967/7 "2025-08-20T10:46:06Z")
I feel like this should be a sticky somewhere, and IA university needs to remove it from their tutorial. ---
**Author:** ![carter.doud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ed8c4c/32.png) [@carter.doud](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/carter.doud)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2025, 2:12pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/template-not-consistent/109967/8 "2025-08-20T14:12:52Z")
yeah, don’t like it at all, feels super clunky, but it does work, so thank you!