When I create a list, I have gotten into the habit of doing the following:
Change Title field name to Item
Give it the default value of View
Go to Advanced Settings
Allow management of content types > Yes
Click Save
Then in Settings, click on the Item type
Then click on the Item field and select Hidden
Then go back to Advanced Settings
Allow management of content types > No
Click Save
The result of this is that:
The Title field (now called Item) is hidden in the form
I have a column called Item, which has the link View in each row (which opens up the item)
I can’t remember why I started doing this (possibly one of the reasons outlined in this video), but the use case must have demanded it and I just kept doing it.
However, lately I have been having troubling thoughts about whether it negatively effects indexing or has any other undesired outcomes.
For example, I did a search in a list the other today, and in the drop down search results that were displayed, I just got multiple rows of the value View.
I also read just before posting this question that list items in the recycle bin will be identified by the value that was in the Title column. So if they all say View it will be impossible to differentiate one from the other.
So I just thought I would see if there is any authoritative, definitive best practice around the Title column, and ask if my convention is bad and if so what I should replace it with.
Thank You.
(Edit: I also hide the Title column in document libraries, as it doesn’t seem to serve a purpose, as clicking on the value in the Name column opens up the document anyway - therefore the ‘link’ action of the Title field is not required).
Related
Can someone advise whether #SetViewInfo can be used with click to sort columnns.
When a view is filtered using #SetViewInfo it removes the column sorting options, thus removing the functionality of the view. Even when resetting to all records the column sorting option is not available, however I have overcome this by opening a second view then opening the original view, messy but it works. I am using View Action Buttons. (Not sure how to store the value in a Check Box Action).
Filtering
#SetViewInfo([SetViewFilter]; "userinitials"; "$80"; 1)
Resetting.
#SetViewInfo([SetViewFilter];"";"$80";1);
#SetTargetFrame("frame");
#Command([OpenView]; "DummyView"); //Needed to get the click to sort back
#Command([OpenView]; "OriginalView")
Also if the view is already sorted on another column, ie not in a categorised state no records are found. I don't want to have to remove the sorting options on my views. The help implies you don't need to have the view categorised. But I cannot get it to work if I don't, ie if I use 0 on an uncategorised view nothing happens.
From Help
isCategory - Number. Boolean value. Required in a Standard Outline view; not for use in Calendar views. 1 indicates that the column in the columnName value is a category. 0 indicates that it is not.
Is the #SetViewInfo limited as I have found or am I missing something?
Any help appreciated.
Yes, #SetViewInfo has limitations. As far as I know, you cannot keep the sorting when you use SetViewFilter. I also believe you need to have the view categorized, at least in older versions of Notes this was the case, if I remember correctly.
Limitations like this is why I personally don't use #SetViewInfo very often (if at all), I try to use other ways to display filtered documents.
One way I have handled it in the past is to use a special form with a rich text field, and then I build a list of filtered documents (e.g. through a search) and render the list of documents in the rich text item.
I use this technique to do that: http://blog.texasswede.com/dynamic-tables-in-classic-notes/
I have a formA where I have a field '_author' which is of type Authors/Computed for display with value (#Subset($Updatedby;1)). I display information from formA on viewA. What I want to achieve is that documents that are created by you are only visible to yourself on viewA. I tried the following formula in viewA 'View Selection':
SELECT (form = "formA" & #UserName =_author). Even though I know that these two variables have the same values when I read it from the document's properties, the condition is not satisfied and I do not see a single document. If I delete everything after "&", the view shows all documents.
All is hosted on a server which handles users.
A handy workaround is to create a Page with an embedded view. This view is exactly like your view but has an additional first categorized (!) column with your field _author.
Put into embedded view's property "Show single category" the formula #UserName or #Name([CN]; #UserName) depending on how your categorized column _author is formatted. Show then always the Page instead of the view.
This way you avoid trouble with "Shared, private on first use" views and users see exactly their own documents only.
#UserName works in a special manner in selection formulas in views. In your case the view should be Private on First Use. Read further here: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21089773 .
Be aware that this lead to all sort of issues, e.g. when you update the design of the view users must remove the view manually to get the changes deployed.
There are explanations for this all over the web, but none I have followed a) seem to work, b) explain how to achieve this in simple noob terms, c) show any sort of diagram, or d) make assumptions that you want to start jumping right into code...
I have a form for users to log training they have completed. I have a sharepoint list with the course name and the duration in hours.
When the user opens the infopath form, it populates a read-only field with their username, and populates a dropdown with the list of available training courses from my sharepoint list.
All I want to do is to populate another read-only field with the duration of the course... But I just cant find the right filter settings to do it.
Currently I have the default value of the duration field in my form set to the formula:
Duration(from SP list)[Course Title (from SP list) = Training Course (from form lookup field)]
But this is not returning any values...
This is using both SP 2010 and IP 2010
Ok, you use rules, not the default value, as pretty much every website I have looked for answer tells you...
Make sure the default value for the field you want to populate is blank, and then set a rule that when your lookup field value changes, it updates the value in your other field...
That was easier than I thought!
This is soemthing called a cascated drop down there are various examples of this on the web.
To do this you need to click on the drop down box that you want to filter.
This will be the duration. (The user would then select the course they went on)
In the duration drop down below you would ensure that you have connected it the correct data source.
Right click on the duraction drop down.
Drop down list properties
get choices from external data source
on the entries you would select the button to the right hand side
You would select 'course title now as this is what you want it to be filtered by' (drop down above)
When selected you would click filter data - (button on bottom right hand side)
You would then filter it so the formula is 'CourseTitle(above drop down) 'is equal to' CourseTitle(data source from the list)'
This then should only allow them to match select the time that matches that course.
If this doesnt work let me know.
I am very new to Infopath, and need some architechtual guideslines. My scenario is as follows:
I have a Sharepoint list, let's say it contains beer, and three items of it: "Kronenbourg", "Corona", "Tuborg". "Beer" is a content type, derived from Item.
What I need to do :
I need to create a "dynamic" Infopath form, that presents the user with a CheckBox for each beer. If a new beer is added to the Beer list, a new Checkbox should show up on the form without intervention, even on saved instances of the form. I have not decided what should happen upon deletions.
I then need to save this infopath form, including the selections, in a sharepoint form library, so that the users can go back to one of maybe many beer-forms that they have saved, and maybe change the selections.
I also need to build a string from the selections at some point in time, and present this string in a visible column in the form library, but thats beyond the scope of this post.
What I managed to throw together so far:
I have a kind of working Infopath form. I have added a sharepoint dataconnection to the Beer list, and dragged a repeating table to the design area. This "works", i get a list of my list items. I then added dummy Y/N field to my beer content type, selected it in the fields, and now i get a neat checkbox next to my records.
Obviously this does not seem right. I do not need to save anything back to the Beer table, I only need to use the beer table for lookup, and keep the selected choices in the saved instance of the form.
Ok, thanks for staying with me so far. What do I do here, can Infopath be persuaded to support a scenario like this, or am I better off building custom webparts? I think my main questions are:
Can I maybe attach an "input-only" CheckBox to a repeating list/section ? (and how do I refer to such dynamically created control)
How do I make Infopath load the choices dynamicly from db, but save the data in the instance of the form?
Should, and can I maybe attach a content type to the form library, representing the choices and somehow attach that to the form?
Thanks for any input
If I understand your requirements, I think the thing to do here is to use a Multi-Selection list box (MSLB). This can have its values populated from a secondary data source (i.e. a list), and it would be bound to a repeating field that would automatically have values added and removed as values are selected and deselected.
As far as getting the selections into a single string, if you just want this value for a column of the form library that the forms will be submitted to, you can just use this repeating field as a promoted property, and use the "Aggregate" option to combine the values into one.
The other option would be to create a separate field to hold the string and use the "double eval trick" (please Google that) to combine the values into one. One gotcha here is that if you use double eval trick with a MSLB, you have to put the formula both in a rule on the MSLB's field, and in the default value formula for the target field.
We have a reporting web site and in the search screen most of the fields are comboboxes. We then AND all the fields together to get a filtered list of records. For example if i chose NY in the City dropdown and priority 1 in the priority dropdown and sales in the team dropdown, it would general something that looked like this (pseudo SQL)
Show me all record where City = 'NY' AND Priotity = '1' AND Team = 'Sales'
We now just added tagging to our records so to support searching by tag(s), we added an additional textbox to search by TAG where you can entered a comma seperated list.
Right now this is an autocomplete textbox which supports multiple entries.(similar to the Multiple Cities (local) example on this page.
When we rolled it out people had different expectation on how search would work when you entered multiple items in the text box. Would it:
Do an AND and only return records that had ALL of the tags listed.
Do an OR and return records that has ANY of the tags listed.
It turns out that we rolled out #1 but many people expected #2. Is this just basically preference or is there a default standard here in this example. Our only solution right now is to add a radio button next to the textbox to say ALL or ANY
If your users expect it to work one way then that's the way it should work.
This is a great example of why you should test early and often with actual users.
I'd say it is not basically preference, but expectations based on what users experience in other types of searches. The "OR" was probably expected by your users as use of tagging gets pretty close to being like a search engine searching on any word in a text and most search engines do an "OR" and then order the results according to how many terms (tags) were "hit".
If going all the way supporting AND and OR operators is not feasible right now, then I would indeed offer an "All" versus "Any" radio button and default it to "Any".