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.
Related
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).
I recently just constructed a new view for a Lotus Notes Application and tested it to be fine.
It was supposed to get field data from 2 nearly identical forms and display into the view. The fields on both forms share the same name.
The formula used in View Selection is
SELECT ContactName; CompanyName; ContactNumber; CarNo; RequestDate
--comment: These are the names used in both forms --
This worked fine yesterday. Also I made sure that each column has selected the correct field to display and I did not change any settings. However, today when I went back to check, the view is all empty.
What seems to be the cause of this?
Your selection formula for the view is not correct. You use the name of the forms in the select statement and then add your fields as column in the view. If we assume that the forms are called FormA and FormB, then your selection formula for the view can look like this:
SELECT Form="FormA":"FormB"
In the relational controls sample db (xpagesjdbc.nsf) there is an example called JDBC_RowSetDatasource. This uses a view panel and has the check box turned on in the view panel to allow the user to select a document. Then there is a button to delete the selected docs using a simple action, delete selected documents. This deletes the document but until the button with the code that has jdbcData1.acceptChanges() is pressed the changes are not committed and the row shows as to be deleted (first icon column with the isRowDeleted() call to determine the icon).
I am working on a similar situation but with a repeat control. I can delete the row with #jdbcDelete but that is immediate. Looking at the data it shows the row is gone from the data even before acceptChanges() is called.
Since I can't use the simple action to delete selected documents (no view panel) what is the Java equivalent to delete the row in a similar manner? I have tried deleteRow() on both the variable for the data set and for the row but get an error in both cases.
Howard, the simple action just memorizes the primary keys of the records as to be deleted. If you want to simulate that you need to take a similar approach (using a ViewScope variable or bean) to keep track of your "deleted" records and a method that executes the actual deletion.
Smells like a case for a bean
I have a Lotus Notes database in which a view shows up empty, BUT when i do a search (using basic notes search functionality), it returns some documents. How can this be possible? Also how to make those documents show up in the view.
I tried updating the Readers field of the documents, but that also didn't worked.
Please help.
There is very high probability your view shows response documents, but not their parent/main document. Response hierarchy is ignored after FT search, therefore they show up.
Simply, turn off "Show response documents in a hierarchy" in view properties or rewrite selection formula.
First check if the view is actually empty. You could have documents in the view, but because they don't have fields that match the columns they won't be visible.
Double click on a blank spot where a document should be, or CTRL-A (Select All). Alternatively page down a number of times, as the documents you are finding may be lower down.
I would recommend then to check the Search criteria of the view in question that you are not accidentally pulling in documents that are not meant for that view.
If that doesn't work (which I have never seen to be honest), the full text index search works as follows.
Make a call to the FTI folder with the search term.
Gets a list of documents that match the search.
Discards the documents on that list based on the following.
Is the user allowed to view the document?
Would the document appear in the view under normal circumstances?
Has the document since been deleted?
(Forth reason escapes me, will look it up)
It then displays those documents in the view.
So in short, the full text index search will never show documents that cannot already be shown in the view.
Beyond that, a possible corrupted view index. You can run "UPDALL -v" on it to rebuild the indexes.
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/domhelp/v8r0/topic/com.ibm.help.domino.admin85.doc/H_UPDALL_OPTIONS_3277_STEPS.html
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.