So, i am stuck in an awkward situation. My employer is deploying a new service, and decided to use SP Foundation 2013 (for reasons i can't understand, other than cost i assume).
The problem is, they tacked on the requirement that old files be automatically removed after 30 days. As it is, they wont approve any additional programs on the server (it is already in "production"), and Foundation itself specifically has the information management portions removed.
So, as i understand it, i think my only hope might be PowerShell (which is allowed, and would be close enough to "automatic" that it should work for that requirement). Problem is, I can't really find any concrete information on if it can work, or how i would do it. Anyone have any advice? It literally is nothing more than removing files (not folders) older than 30 days..
Related
Is there a way to export all of TFS 2008 Groups and Permissions for an Audit?
I looked at the TFS Permissions Manager mentioned in another answer and couldn't easily figure out how to use this for an audit of user permissions. That said I looked around and found a few other possible tools to help in this process:
Team Foundation Server Administration Tool - This can be used to produce a list of TFS groups, users & permissions on a per project basis. The utility uses a grid control to display the results and this can easily be copied and pasted into Excel, etc.
TFS Project Audit - This tool generates output in an indented text format. It too works on a per project basis however it lists the output grouped by TFS role.
I think both of the options I mention are more recently maintained than the TFS Permission Manager at the time of this writing. Also, keep in mind that for purposes of a security audit I believe that the local & domain administrators groups in Windows Server have the ability to override any of the TFS permissions (at least with TFS 2008).
I'm the guy who wrote TFS Project Audit and I'd like to clarify a few things about my tool. First, it works on a project basis for TFS 2008 or a collection basis for 2010. It can report on a specific collection or all collections on a TFS server. These are enhancements I made in the newest version, released only a few days ago. Also, the output can be restricted to a specific group, Project Administrators, for example, across a project, collection, or the entire server.
I am always soliciting but rarely receiving feedback on this pet project of mine, so please feel free to leave suggestions for future releases! I have plenty of ideas in mind but it would help to know where my time is best spent, because this projectis hardly all I do with my days.
To prove it is really me, I'll give Saul a shout at tfsprojects.codeplex.com. Thanks a lot Saul!
Have you looked at this?
http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/srlteam/archive/2006/11/27/TFS-Permission-Manager-1.0-is-Finally-out.aspx
We'll be upgrading a client's MOSS public internet site soon from a Cumulative Update to SP2 and are conscious that there will be downtime (to perform the upgrade and possibly troubleshooting!). We would like to add a holding page so that visitors still get access to key contact details and a message that the site is under maintenance.
Does anyone have any tips for doing this type of thing with SharePoint? I know of the app_offline.htm file that when dropped into the web root, will automatically prevent access to the rest of the site but wasn't sure if this was standard practice in the SharePoint world?
Any tips?
Cheers, James.
If the app_offline.htm works for you, then by all means, use it.
I think that it will the best option for you, and to the best of my knowledge SharePoint doesn't have any other means of putting itself offline.
As this is a public intranet site you are updating, presumably there is already a test environment for it that is close or the same in configuration. It is important to follow exactly the same steps for updating the test environment as you would for production. These should be documented as well and followed to the letter to reduce the likelihood of mistakes. This way you are much less likely to run into problems.
I would try app_offline.htm as you suggest (like Magnus I don't believe there is another way to take SharePoint offline). If your test environment updates with this in place you should be fine.
How do you handle improvements and added functionality to your existing SharePoint code?
Did you deploy your original code as a feature?
Do you create a new feature_V2 and deactivate the original?
What processes have you found that led to problems in the future?
I am specifically interested about WebParts, EventHandlers, and WorkFlows.
From what I can find, MS did not leave a "Best Practices" around updating existing code. (Actually, I'm not sure they left a "Practice" much less a "Best Practices")
You can see other questions around this topic:
how-to-upgrade-a-long-running-sharepoint-workflow-already-in-production
how-to-update-spitemeventreceiver-assembly-version-for-a-list-in-sharepoint
should-i-keep-solutions-and-features-in-a-1-1-ratio
What is your method?
I understand this question may be subjective, but I feel there is a large information gap surrounding this area of SharePoint development.
Thank you,
Keith
We always deploy custom code as features and solutions. When it is time to upgrade the existing code, all you have to do is stsadm -upgradesolution and everything works very nicely. I do not like the idea of having feature_v2 type features around...it makes it extremely difficult to keep track of the current version. I think you should only have one version of each feature in your production environment.
Leave the version control to your source control system.
I'm working at a shop that does a lot of SharePoint development. You want to deploy by feature with a solution package. You can easily upgrade your features as you go along and you will need to upgrade the solution package. This solution package can be created from a TFS Build server with WSPBuilder. As you along, the only thing left is to upgrade the solution and "Force" reactivate your feature to have the new feature of the feature.
Don't forget to do an IIS reset for any new code deployment that is done through the GAC. If you put anything inside like sitemaps and resources inside your 12, you will want to do a stsadm -o copyappbincontent.
If you deploy features that contain application files, you want to unload your application on ALL servers of the farm. It can easily be done by putting an App_Offline.htm at the root of every application on every machine.
When completed, remove App_Offline.htm (or rename it) and you are done. Your site is back online.
Does anyone have any strategies/tips/traps for moving to Team System? Should it be done in baby steps, or all at once? Should we migrate our SourceSafe library over, or draw a line in the sand and move forward? Is it worth brining SharePoint into the mix? Any thoughts are appreciated.
I've never had to migrate to TFS, but have used it pretty extensively for the past couple of years.
Regarding your question on Sharepoint, we've found it pretty useful in conjunction with TFS. We use it primarily for documentation management and for storing other "non-technical" artifacts related to the project. Some dev teams advocate keeping documentation in source control alongside source code, which is OK, but in my experience our project stakeholders have an easier time accessing relevent project documentation via the Sharepoint portal than they would having to interface with source control.
I basically was able to distribute the URL to the sharepoint site associated with our TFS team project to the concerned non-technical team members and have been able to avoid constantly e-mailing documents around, so it's been great for us.
It may just be too much work to do it all at once.
I feel that it is easier to divvy out projects to different people one at a time.
That way they can move them across and ensure that each works okay before closing out the SourceSafe.
You will always want a backup of the SourceSafe "database" around just in case.
I do not know how to migrate from SourceSafe to TFS and keep the comments and versions.
By far the easiest it to just add the projects in, but having migrated that way in the past, we always missed the ability to find out what others had done to particular files.
If you find a way to migrate, I would go that way unless it is hideously expensive.
What is the general feeling amongst developers regarding the changing of files in the 12 hive.
For example if you were asked to remove the sign is a different user menu item, you would need to modify the relevent user control on the filesystem. Now if you just go and modify it via notepad or copy over and then if you go and bring a new server into the farm you will need to remember to do the same on the new server.
Obvouisly you could deploy the changed file as a solution and have that done automatically, but I'm just wondering if people are hesitant to make changes to the default installed files?
I have done a bit of SharePoint development, and I must tell you that messing with the 12-hive is a ticket to a world of pain if you ever want to move the app.
I'd rather hack up some javascript to hide it, at least that can be bound to the master page, which is much more portable.
And remember, you never know when the next service pack comes around and nukes your changes :)
I agree with Lars. Sometimes you will not be able to avoid it, depending on your needs. But, in general the best policy is to avoid modification if at all possible.
I know that some of the other menu items in the current user menu (change login, my settings, etc) can be changed by removing permissions from the user. Under Users and Groups there is an option for permissions. I can't remember the exact setting (develop at work, not at home), but there are reasonable descriptions next to each of the 30+ permissions. Remove it and you start hiding menu options. No modifications to the 12-hive needed.
There is a very simple rule: if you want to keep official support from Microsoft, don't change any of the files in the 12 hive that are installed by SharePoint.
I've never encountered a situation where the only solution was to change such a file. For example if you want to change an out-of-the-box user control of SharePoint, you can do so by making use of the DelegateControl, and overriding it in a feature.
More info:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms463169.aspx
http://www.devx.com/enterprise/Article/36628
I know it's tempting to quickly change a file, and I have to admit sometimes I just do that on a DEV box, but don't go there on a production server!
Not sure if there is much use pitching in, as everyone else pretty much has it covered, but I would also say don't do it. As tempting as it is, its just impossible to know the full impact of that little change you have made.
From a support perspective you will make it difficult for Microsoft support (patches/hotfixes).
From a maintenance perspective you are also opening yourself up to long term costs.
Go the javascript route.
The way to go about it is to use a Sharepoint Solution (WSP) file.
To change the user control, create a new Sharepoint feature with the new functionality.
Include this feature in your solution.
Deploy the solution either using the stsadm command line, or through Central Site Admin.
This will then get automatically deployed to all the servers in your farm, and it avoids you overwriting anything default sharepoint files.
For more info, check out Sharepoint Nuts and Bolts blog on http://www.sharepointnutsandbolts.com/ which give an introduction to WSP and Sharepoint Features.
I've done this many times and I will speak from experience: Never ever touch the onet.xml files within the 12 hive under any circumstance. Any error that you make in there, and to make the CAML even more complex the file is largely whitespace sensitive, will have an impact on every part of SharePoint.
You should also consider that aside from the substantial risk to the installation, you may well be building in dependencies upon your changes that are then over-written in a future patch or service pack.
Most of the time, you can accomplish everything you want to using features and solution packages without modifying the files. However, there are a few (rather annoying) rare cases where your only option would be to modify a file on the system. I have used it for two particular cases so far. One was to add the PDF iFilter to the docicon.xml file, and the other was to add a theme to the themes.xml file. In both cases, it seemed to be the only way to achieve the goal. Still, we used a solution package to write those files out to all the servers in the farm.