As a user experience requirement, I need to create a dynamic dashlet.
According to what I need, a dynamic dashlet would be a special dashlet that can load inside "almost every content". I say almost every content because of course this kind of dashlet would have its own limits of course. At the same time, it would be nice that the dynamic dashlet has the ability of being maximized, what in fact would show the real content (for example, an Alfresco page).
Perhaps my question is ambiguous, but the intention to give the user the chance of check execute common functionality inside that special dashlet, this way the user doesn't have to leave the dashboard improving the user experience as a consequence.
Did anybody have had such requirement or similar before? Would that be possible to do?
I would like to know some tips and suggestions in order to find out the right approach.
Thanks in advance.
You could try re-using the webview Dashlet which can also show another page.
The only problem is that not every part which is visible in Share can be accessed via url. Sure the template gets build up by regions of *.ftl's but that doesn't mean you can 'just' view the *.ftl.
The only 'dynamic' thing I see is making a custom page template which shows one or couple of regions which are dynamically build by the url.
e.g. pointing to share/page/customPage?region1=documentlibrary should insert the documentlibrary template within that page and thus it can be shown within the iFrame of the webview Dashlet.
Actually the documentlibrary is a bad example, because there is already a portletMode available for Liferay. But hopefully you'll get my point.
Related
Our Application has components which consume components with consume components of varying complexity. So i just want the input on the page, to validate when an object is set that the text is correct. The issue is that it is one of these subcomponents.
My colleague told me that there is 2 ways to do this, The first is to use Page Objects, and Chaining annotation to find it on my page, and then find the next id etc until my input is found. It requires me to look through another teams' Component Markup to narrow it down to the input i want to leverage. I dont believe I should have to go into another component definition, or a definition of a definition to get the appropriate chain to get this arbitrary input. It starts to create issues where if a lateral team creates changes unbeknownst to me, my PO will be broken.
The other option my friend asked was to use fixture.query to find the component. This would be as simple as:
fixture.query((el)=> el.attribute["id"] == "description",
(comp){
expect(comp.value, value);
});`
Using Query looks at the markup but then will automatically componentize it as the appropriate SubComponent. In this case, comp.value is the value stored in the HTML. So, if i did something like:
fixture.update((MainComponent comp) {
comp.myinput.value = new Foo();
});
Then I am setting and getting this programmatically, so i am a bit unsure if it properly would reflect what is on the screen.
Whats the best course of action? It seems PO would be better, but im not sure if there is a way around having to deep query for input boxes outside of the component i am testing.
Thanks
I don't think I have a definitive answer for you but I can tell you how we do it at Google. For pretty much any component we provide the page object alongside the component. This is twofold it is for testing that widget, and also so we can have this as a shareable resource for other tests.
For leaf widgets the page objects are a little less fleshed out and are really just there for the local test. For components that are shared heavily the page object is a bit more flushed out for reusability. Without this much of the API for the widget (html, css, etc) we would need to consider public and changes to them would be very hard (person responsible for making the public breaking change needs to fix all associated code.) With it we can have a contract to only support the page object API and html structure changes are not considered breaking changes. At times we have even gone so far as to have two page objects for a widget. One for the local test, and one to share. Sometimes the API you want to expose for a local test is much more than you want people to use themselves.
We can then compose these page objects into higher level page objects that represent the widget. Good page objects support a higher level of abstraction for that widget. For example a calendar widget would let you go to the next/previous month, get the current selected date, etc. rather than directly exposing the buttons/inputs that accomplish those actions.
We plan to expose these page objects for angular_components eventually, but we are currently working on how to expose these. Our internal package structure is different than what we have externally. We have many packages per individual widget (page_objects, examples, widget itself) and we need to reconcile this externally before we expose them.
Here is an example:
import 'package:pageloader/objects.dart';
import 'material_button_po.dart';
/// Webdriver page object for `material-yes-no-buttons` component.
#EnsureTag('material-yes-no-buttons')
class MaterialYesNoButtonsPO {
#ByClass('btn-yes')
#optional
MaterialButtonPO yesButton;
#ByClass('btn-no')
#optional
MaterialButtonPO noButton;
}
i'm new in cakephp and I have started with version 3. I want to build a beautifull app and because I'm not good in design, I would really like to use a free template or buy one that I can use within cakephp.
So, I would really appreciate all your propositions and ideas or best practises. The easy way will be the best because I don't have a lot of time with this project. Thank you in advance.
If you don't have a lot of time like you mentioned, the easiest way to go ahead and get started is to paste a lot of the code in your default.ctp layout inside of src/Template/Layout/default.ctp.
You'll notice there are some lines of PHP already in there that are relevant to fetching blocks of css, meta tags, and other bits of code that could potentially exist throughout your project.
Find the main layout of the theme your trying to use - the one that will be consistent across most of the pages. That's the one you'll use for default.ctp. Compare what's already in default.ctp and make the comparable adjustments around the HTML in that document while keeping the important lines of PHP there as well.
For other important pages like a login or registration page, just create a new document for those, like 'login.ctp', then inside the function that loads the page (maybe 'login' inside of UsersController'), change the default layout with this line of code:
$this->viewBuilder()->layout('login'); // without the .ctp ending
This way you can create one-off layouts that don't really match any other page.
I am building a brand new website in Sitecore and I am looking for advice on the following scenario:
My site has 2 version of its homepage. Both are quite different. The layout is the same, but most of the components and sublayouts on it will change depending on whether the user is logged in or not.
Does anybody has a suggestion of a good practice, or way to do that in Sitecore? My basic requirements are, have a single URL for both (the website root, it is a homepage) and do not harm the content author experience.
My thought so far was:
Use of personalization to control the components to be displayed (Concerns: performance and the content author experience he woudnt have to change component by component to see both versions)
Use of two item in the tree and intercept a pipeline to resolve the right item at the right time (Concerns: the content author would have two home items to maintain *not actually a big problem)
Does anybody has any other approach or considerations on those I listed?
Thanks
An alternative solution would be to make use of devices, and use a pipeline to switch devices if the user is logged in.
Set up your Device in Sitecore to use the default layout as a fallback so it does not affect other pages in your site (and they continue to work as expected). You are then able to set different sublayouts and components for that Item (directly or in Standard Values for the template) for each device. You can make use the VaryByDevice caching option to make better use of the Cache.
Your content editors can also switch between the devices easily in the Page Editor from the ribbon. Any further customization you need in other areas of the site, such has switching out a single component, can be run using a Personlization Rule taking advantage of "where the current device compares to value".
It does sound like you have the need for personalization based on authenticated status, so I would recommend staying with the built-in personalization interface to avoid confusion. Authors will have been trained during Sitecore training on how to use personalization, and introducing an alternative method for accomplishing the same thing could lead to a less-than-optimal experience for the author.
To address your concern of the author needing to view components by toggling each one, I would recommend installing the Experience Explorer module. You can create presets that meet your rules on your presentation and then the author can preview the site for different 'experiences'.
If you have a single URL for the home page, it is more straight-forward to go with a single item, so I would definitely advise against having two home page items that are being resolved by the same URL.
You mentioned a concern for performance, so I would recommend you making sure that you enable your sublayout caching settings. In your case, varying by Data may be the way to go, given you would personalize with two sets of datasources.
In the past I have used the following crude technique:
Make two components, one for "logged in" and the other for anonymous.
Each rendering has just one line, a single placeholder, either:
<sc:placeholder key="logged-in" runat="server" />
or
<sc:placeholder key="anonymous" runat="server" />
For "logged in" I make a personalisation rule which hides the component if anonymous, and for the anonymous component I make a personalisation rule which hides the component if the user is logged in.
I then nest all the components under the correct placeholder key.
Is it possible, on a Django webapp, to hide certain links from those users who do not have the permission to click the link?
I bet there is a per-link way to check if the user has persmission to click the link, and then show the link (or not) based on that test. However, when there are a lot links spread across a whole bunch of web pages, that can be ridiculously tedious. Are there any ways to achieve this across the whole website with a setting or something?
write a template tag similar to spaceless that goes over its contents and removes all links that are not accessible. this would save you from having to touch each link manually.
It might be possible to write a custom template tag that would accept a link url, reverse it, introspect what permissions were required for the target view, and then conditionally display it.
You'd still have to touch every link in every template that you wanted to make fancy like that, and it would probably be an ugly beast. All in all, it's probably easier if you come up with a more centralized way to control access.
I'm developing a blog application using Django. Currently, the URL /blog/ displays the front page of the blog (the first five posts). Visitors can then browse or "page through" the blog entries. This portion is mapped to /blog/browse/{page}/, where page, of course, is an integer that specifies which "page" of blog entries should be displayed.
It's occurred to me, though, that perhaps the "page number" should be an attribute of the querystring instead (e.g., /blog/browse/?page=2), since the content of the browse pages is not static (i.e., as soon as I add another post, /blog/browse/2/ will have different contents than it had before the post was added). This seems to be the way sites like Stack Overflow and Reddit do things. For example, when paging through questions on Stack Overflow, a "page" attribute is used; likewise, Reddit uses a "count" attribute.
Extending this thinking, I realize that I use the same template to render the contents of both /blog/ and /blog/browse/, so it might even make sense to just use a URL like /blog/?page=2 to page through the contents of the blog.
Any suggestions? Is there a "standard" way of doing this, or at least a "best practice" method to use?
For my money, the best general purpose approach to this issue is to use the django-pagination utility. It's incredibly easy to use and your URLs should have the format you desire.
I prefer to use the GET URL parameter, as in URL?pg=#. It's very common and provides a standard visual clue to users about what is going on. If, for instance, I want to bookmark one of those pages or make an external link, I know without thinking that I can drop the pg parameter to point at the "latest" front-page index. With an embedded #, this isn't as obvious... do I leave off the parameter? Do I always have to set it to 1? Is it a different base URL entirely? To me, having pagination through the GET parameter makes for a slightly more sensible URL, since there's an acceptable default if the parameter is omitted and the parameter doesn't affect the base URL.
Also, while I can't prove it, it gives me the warm fuzzy feeling that Google has a better chance at figuring out the nature of that page's content (i.e. that it is a paginated index into further data, and will potentially update frequently) versus a page # embedded inside the URL, which will be more opaque.
That said, I'd say this is 99% personal preference and I highly doubt there's any real functional difference, so go with whatever is easier for and fits in better with your current way of doing things.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that my opinion is Django specific... I have a few Django apps so I'm relatively familiar with the way they build their URLs, and I still use a "pg" GET parameter with those apps rather than embedding it in the URL directly.
It seems like there are two things going on. A static page, that won't change and can be used for permalinking, like an article, as well as a dynamic page that will update frequently. There is no reason you cannot use both. URL rewriting should allow this to work quite nicely. There's no reason to let the implementation control the interface, there is always at least one way to skin every cat.