Does anyone know of an add-on which will allow users in the CP to add to a list (similar to P&T List), but the entries for that list are persistent across all entries?
i.e. I have a list with the following sizes:
8
10
12
14
and if the client adds the size '16' - it not only allows them to add it, but all future entries also have that option (and older entries have it too but not selected).
I could have sworn I'd seen something like this in the past, but I can't find it again.
Thanks,
Carl
Carl,
We have an internal field type add-on that I think does what you're asking.
Each instance of a field contains a list that can be initially created along with the field type definition. These options can then be selected from with each channel entry, or new items can be added. These new items will then be in the list for future entries.
A) Does that make any kind of sense (it's a tricky thing to describe)?
B) Do you want me to email you a copy?
Cheers,
Steve.
You may have already considered it but what about Low variables ftw !
This is also possible if the "options" you refer to are entries in an "options" channel and the field in your fieldgroup is a relationship to that channel. That may be a fair bit heavier than you're looking for though, but it's native.
Related
I am trying to create a list item with a multiselect field, according to the m365 spo documentation. It feels like I have tried all possible variations, but I cannot get it to work at all.
Is there any official guide as to the syntax for a multi-select value?
Ok, for whomever bangs their heads against this in the future, the format for the seeds of a multi-lookup field is the following:
Id;Value;#
Where ;# is the separator. You may use # as a wildcard for a value, ending up with the following example where I am adding the related entities with Id 3 and 5 to the seed:
3;#;#5;#
or one single entity:
1;#
or three entities:
2;#;#3;#;#5;#
There seems to be a tiny bit of tolerance on the trailing value, but I did not experiment much with this.
PS: it works, and I am very happy, but dear reader know this: if you feel the need for some eye-bleach after reading this, you are not alone!
The documentation for tasks seems to imply that the POST method uses name/value pairs as the data payload (I'm assuming for a content type of application/x-www-form-urlencoded). Can it accept JSON instead, using the same format as the data returned from a GET call for tasks?
Also, the Memberships field is supposed to contain an array of projects and sections. There's already a Projects field for a task - do those projects need to be duplicated in the list of projects for Memberships or can just the sections be included?
Yep, it's totally possible to use a JSON payload (with the correct Content-Type: application/json) - in fact, in a number of scenarios - like this one - it's considerably easier.
I don't recall off of the top of my head the right way to get this going with form data (if I recall, we might have an outstanding bug filed about it :) ), but with JSON, you should be fine if you specify the project in both locations. I don't think you can get away with not specifying any values in projects (unless you specify a workspace, which might work).
I don't think you can specify only the section. Finally, I think if you specify a different project in each location, it will put it into both: into projects in the "no section" area for whichever ones are in the projects property and put it in the specified sections for those specified in memberships
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.
Is there a possibility to have fields that are added to a contentpart to be grouped. I don't know upfront what fields the customer will add. And if he adds a lot of fields to the contentpart, it would be nice if there was some kind of identifier to group them.
Should I take over the Orchard.Fields module and modify it or is there an easier way?
There is no easy way to do that today, but this is such a common request that I think it should be submitted as a work item (or even better, a patch) on CodePlex. We should add a group attribute to fields and maybe even parts.
UPDATE: I created it for you: http://orchard.codeplex.com/workitem/18920 Feel free to vote for it.
We need to fetch the items added/updated after the user's last visit.
We need this information from 3 separate lists under the same web.
Pointers on how to accomplish this would be very helpful (and does SharePoint provide any API for this).
Kind regards,
Filtering by modified date is straightforward enough, though the method will depend on the type of view - the tricky part is getting the last login time - you're probably going to need a bit of custom code to save that.
Brute force would be to run a foreach on every version until you reach a version before the users last login date, and do this on every list item, and then again on every list. You can see which fields changed this way by seeing what changed between versions. You can narrow down the the set of items to do this on by only querying for ones with a modified date since the users last login
As for finding the users last login, sorry I can suggest anything for that. I've not looked for it before.