My first post on stackoverflow, 'hope I do it the right way :-)
I want to create a new entity-relationship-model of our new project.
After a little bit of search I found UMLDesigner. Installation was easy and create this first classes also.
But when I "paint" associations, I got "hundreds" of labels around them.
Have a look into the documentation, I found a way to hide labels, but ...
But
a) I could not select association lables in bulk. The filter works only of the caption of a object and not of the typ (e.g. association vs. class).
Is there a way to only select "associations"?
b) If I hide "a" label of the association, all labels are hidden. What I wanted was to hide only the "end"/role"-labels, but not the name of the association itself
c) Is there a global way to hide/show labels or have I always select a new created object and then hide things?
Question over question, maybe someone can answer them :-)
Ingo
Thanks great to see you managed to install it.
Sorry, no it exists no bulk actions on hide you should select one by one the element or decide to hide all.
Related
I have been following an old guide ( https://blogs.sap.com/2012/03/22/add-custom-field-to-sc-and-powl/) to add a field to POWL but it doesn't work in my case.
It is required to add the "Supplier product number" to the layout.
Since it's an existing field, I thought it was simple. But it's not the case. Following the guide, the field required is in the structure "/SAPSRM/S_POWL_RESULT_SC_ITM", so no need to add it.
Next, in SPRO, Adjust POWL Layout, Search Criteria, and Pushbuttons, I added the field to different feeders (because it didn't work for any of the feeders I found, I thought it wasn't the right one .. so I played with all of them)
a)
b)
c)
After this, the next step is to check in program POWL_D01 the query that might be cached for this layout and to delete the cache. I deleted all the cache data related to the queries "SAPSRM_FEEDER_SC*" and the result is ...
The field is nowhere to be seen in my layout.
Could you point me into the right direction ?
Regards,
Marius
I've got a simple repeater that list links to uploaded documents using cms.file. I'm drawing a blank on adjust the ORDER BY based on publish date. I can't find anything here on this, so i apologize if this is a duplicate.
Best practice is to add custom field to page type (in this case cms.file or better create the new one) and set ORDER BY condition to this new field. There are also properties like DocumentModifiedWhen, DocumentCreatedWhen, DocumentCheckedOutWhen you can use.
I'm going to use DocumentModifiedWhen as the ORDER By statement.
There are two fields [DocumentPublishTo] and [DocumentPublishFrom] that you can think of using. These are the two fields which appear at the bottom of each form page by default.
I wish to create a view showing a number of fields from notes documents with replication or save conflicts. So far I have managed to create a basic view with a column for the document ID (Contract ID) then the next column states "Replication or Save Conflicts" but I don't seem to able to either get rid of the replocation or save conflcits column or add new columns to show additional fields from the document. Is there a way I can do this? I want to be able to show the view in XPages. Here is the View selection formula I am using;
SELECT #IsAvailable($Conflict)
Conflicts are not displayed good in views. here are a few alternative tips to deal with conflicts that might give you an idea or two :-)
Create a categorized column with the value of the field $ConflictItems in the view you have, then you will see which item is causing the conflict and can take action to prevent it.
When you open a conflict you can use the action menu "View Parent" to compare the parent and the conflict
Ytra ScanEZ is a great tool for finding and resolving conflicts. it is also possible to create a script that will compare the documents and present a diff list.
You can create an XPage to display your conflicts (and parents). The web is more dynamic as it allow you to layout your data in the way you want and is not restricted to the way view in Notes works. This kind of xpage can be displayed in Notes client or Web browser
Use XPages power. Get all documents from the view with your selection formula. But don't try to show any column value and get fields directly from back-end document you get from view entry entry.getDocument().
Sure, it has some performance impact, but for (hopefully) small amount of replication conflict it's nothing serious.
Probably a very simple thing to do, but I have missed it:
Scenario:
One creates content of the type Supplier. And then starts creating content of type Product, in which the product has to be linked to the supplier (product is supplier bound, so need for a n-m relationship)
Is it possible to create two related content types (Supplier and Product). I know I can do that by programming. But I would like to follow the code less philosophy as much as possible.
UPDATE: I have answered my question below. Which brings me to a new question (I will search for an answer, but if someone knows please be my guest: Can a filter of content types that can be selected be set upfront. So that the user can only select a specific content type in the link field.
Too fast...Just found another question where the answer was hidden in it:
Linking content items can be done easily in 1.5 using the new content picker, at least for the simplest kinds of relations.
Evenings chaps,
I'm using XCode4 to model my entities, but I cannot figure out how to change the cardinality of the relationships so by default they are all 1 to 1 relationships. Someone give me a hint on how to change it please :)
Are you seeing a straight line with one arrowhead? That's 1:1 already and is the default.
To set 1:many, one way is to select the relationship and in the right view pane (you may need to turn it on by clicking the right hand button in the view section in the toolbar) select the rightmost of the three icons at the top. You should see some options under "Relationship", including "Plural" (Maybe "Cardinality" was too long).