I have a few fields that I don't want to appear in the report. Is there a way to hide them completely (not even show the column header for these fields)?
I tried to create my own ISaveAction with the intent to filter out those fields before they get saved to the DB, but even if they don't appear in the AdaptedResultList that is sent to the DataManager.InsertForm the columns associated to these fields still appear in the reports.
Out of the box functionality, the answer is that if you mean one of the reports in the Form Reports area of WFFM, you most likely can, depending on the report. If you mean one of the reports that you can see a "Design" button on top when you view it, then you know that it's using the report that is configured in one of the .mrt files in your website directory in this path:
Website\sitecore modules\Shell\Web Forms for Marketers\Reports
Editing one of the reports by hitting the Design button will open up the Stimulsoft designer that is built in to Sitecore and you can make changes. You can also download one of the trial clients from the Stimulsoft website and open the .mrt files directly and edit them that way (the interface is WAY nicer than the built in Sitecore one).
A word of caution, however, BACK UP THE FILE FIRST!!! The Stimulsoft interface is picky and easy to break and it's got a learning curve. Once you figure out the basics though, removing a field is cake.
Related
I have a strange issue whereby when I edit a rich text field in the experience editor and save the page, it takes me to the layout not found page.
When switching back to the content editor, I can see that final layout has been completely wiped (the shared remains intact). I've noticed that if I change to the shared layout within the experience editor (via the presentation tab) and perform the same edit - it works fine.
What would cause the final layout to be wiped?
I've noticed that this can be caused by having Final Renderings set on a template's standard values. Currently I can't think of a reason to do this but I can see how it's very easy to accidentally edit a standard values item in the experience editor in the wrong mode.
It's easy to reset presentation details back to standard values in Sitecore, but to my knowledge you can't reset just the final renderings. To avoid having to go through each failing template and manually reset and re-add all the added renderings I've found an easy way to fix it if you have TDS (or similar) installed.
Search for __Final in the /Sitecore/templates folder in the file system.
Delete all the instances of this __Final Renderings field (From the '----field----' line until the next one).
Sync with Sitecore.
Not really a fix to the issue, but when I had to fix >20 templates where this was happening it saved me a lot of time and thought it was worth a share.
The way that Page Editor handles versions has been causing issues for in one of our Sitecore solutions for a client. I've posted about them here:
Sitecore instance showing incorrect workflow state in Page Editor
Expected usage of Page Editor's Experience date
I didn't get much response on those and so far I've surmised that this is just how Sitecore works. This is less than ideal for our instance, as when publishing restrictions are set, authors don't know which version they're editing which is causing various issues for them.
I'd like to implement a solution(s) to improve the experience provide the following functionality:
Something in the Experience tab that shows the number of the version being viewed.
A button on the Experience tab that resets the Date to the default (this is not simply setting the date to the current date/time, but resetting it to act as it did before a date was manually set).
A custom button in Content Editor which allows an author to open a specific version in Page Editor...set the date automatically when it opens, I guess.
An any one give me some clues on how much of this is possible and where to start?
Thanks.
For the first bullet "Something in the Experience tab that shows the number of the version being viewed", you can add version item in Core database.
Move to "Core" DB in Desktop Mode
Navigate to "/sitecore/content/Applications/WebEdit/Ribbons/WebEdit/Experience/"
Create "Versions" item like this, http://imgur.com/bPEDm7R
Create "Compare" item under "Versions" like this, http://imgur.com/dG8dz2M
The result like this, http://imgur.com/HPu3XAL
The content author can see which version they are using and they can also compare with previous versions.
I'm looking for something that allow content editors to select multiple files from the media library, which will be listed in a rendering. They also need to be able upload files and to search. It has to work in the Page Editor (named Experience Editor in version 8).
What I have have considered so far:
A bunch of File fields - but I don't know how many files the editor need to select at most, and having something like 20 similar fields seems bad.
Using a field that supports multiple items like a Treelist with the datasource set to the Media Library allows the user to select files in an acceptable way but not uploading. I tested adding one File field just for the upload function, but was not really satisfied.
Notes:
Currently using Sitecore 7.5 but moving to 8 in a few days, so a solution working in Sitecore 8 is preferred.
I have asked the Sitecore support too and will update here if I get useful answers.
And the winner is.... the answer from Sitecore support:
In the Email Experience Manager module there is a field called "File List".
The image shows the dialog in Sitecore 8 and the field itself (below). It has search, supports multiple files and upload. It stores the value as pipe-separated GUIDs (just as similar fields like Treelist).
The Field Types Module on Sitecore Marketplace includes "Visual List" and "Carousel" custom field types which may provide what you need. I have used this in the past and found it to work well, though I'm not sure if it's compatible with Sitecore 8. As I remember, I don't think they provided the option for uploading new media from the field.
An alternative solution is to use a placeholder and a file component with a DataSource.
Give the component a standard File Field. So upload is possible.
But for every new file the editor must add a new component to the placeholder with the page editor. This is with a lot of files more work for the editor. But a standard solution. (and the ability to personalize the files with the rules engine)
I am working on some custom Redmine reports. In the generated report, there are numbers that represent things like "number of issues moved to Development during Q3 2013". The report generator knows the issue id of every issue that matches that criteria.
Is there a way to construct a Redmine URL that shows a list of all issues given a list of issue ids? For example, something like (this doesn't actually work):
http://redmine/projects/example/issues?ids=1234,1239,1245
This is similar to existing feature requests such as http://www.redmine.org/issues/10828 but I'm looking for the user-facing HTML version, not an API function. The idea is to allow the user viewing the report to click on the number and to see the corresponding list of issues.
The solution I ended up with was to include the list of issues in a <div> for each number in the report that the user could click on. Then, when the user clicks on a number, the corresponding <div> is displayed using a jQuery UI dialog.
This is not the same as using the Redmine issue list screen to show the issues. However, for this purpose it works well enough.
No, this is not implemented. But for me it should never be necessary in the Gui.
My Solution would be : Build the adequate query. Eventually this will need the addition of a field in Redmine and backporting the information from your tool to Redmine. Generally the need for this feature shows your bug tracker lacks some information that he should track.
We've been noticing an increase in number of broken links on our sitecore website.
Some it is due to
User Training
Publishing Issues (linked page is not yet published)
Maybe content editor issues
It's been hard to verify some of these but sometimes the link might have the authoring page URL (which means someone didn't follow the SOP), sometimes they have a strange url like /shell/Content Editor/...
So we are trying to proactively fix these before the pages go live.
I had a couple ideas like writing a Handler that would look through all "Rich Text Fields" and looking for inconsistencies (like authoring server URL). Also using a crawler-type of validator could help us (http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html#Description) but we were wondering what the community was doing to address this issue.
The "internal link checker" usually works well but doesn't detect many of this erroneous setups (as I believe it sees them as 'external links').
Your input is greatly appreciated!
If you have RichText fields and create internal links, your internal link looks like this in the HTML view: "a href="~/link.aspx?_id=EB3AD128E7BF4F3C9F3812F701D7724E&_z=z" and when you hover with your mouse over it, is show "/Sitecore/Shell/Controls/Rich Text Editor/" before the ~/link.aspx. This is normal behavior. This link is modified to a normal link during rendering of the RTE field.
However, be sure to use the Sitecore controls like to render these RTE fields and to render links. Also using sc:fld() in XSLT instead of sc:field() can create strange links because sc:fld is rendering the raw value of the field.
In all of the Sitecore projects I have been working on, I didn't have much issues with broken links.
There is a known bug with copy-pasting links from a rich text editor, where path info is appended to the link (generating the /shell/Content Editor/ stuff).
Sitecore have a fix for it here:
http://sdn.sitecore.net/Products/Sitecore%20V5/Sitecore%20CMS%206/ReleaseNotes/KnownIssues%20Recommended/Copying%20and%20pasting%20link%20in%20rt%20fields%20may%20break%20the%20link.aspx
I would suggest a new Validation Action added to the workflow command before the items are finalized. Then you could actively stop them from being published and give immediate feedback. If you're not using workflows, you could add a new item level validator, but those often get ignored in my experience -- too many false positives on the existing validators.