I'm in the middle of trying to copy a custom content type from one web to another. I've googled around and found some examples that use FieldLinks and Fields. I'm kind of lost as to which one to use, since when I get the FieldLinks from my source web, I get 3 fields; while retrieving from Fields only returned me 2 fields... the custom field is missing. I'm pretty darn sure that I've added the fields at the proper level since I did it via the interface. But when retrieving it using code... the numbers just don't add up.
So besides from that strange problem, I want to know what is the difference between FieldLinks and Fields, and when dealing with them in Content Types (programmatically) which one should I use?
Thanks.
SPFields are fields themselves, while SPFieldLinks are references to the fields. This is a good read that will explain things in detail. In general practice, it is safer to use SPFieldLinks when you are working on the actual content type definition. However, I'll give a quick summary here.
Lists and Webs contain the actual fields with field data. A content type, on the other hand, only holds Field Reference, which simply points at the corresponding field in the list or web. This gets a bit confusing, because content types have both an SPFieldLinkCollection and an SPFieldCollection.
The SPFieldLinkCollection is used in the actual definition of the content type, and is what you would want to use in your situation of copying a content type from one web to another. SPFieldLinks correspond to the actual elements in the XML Schema for a content type.
Comparatively, when you call on a content type's SPFieldCollection and retrieve a Field from it, what is actually happening is that the content type is checking the corresponding field reference, and then looking up in the list/web to get the actual field. Basically, think of the SPFieldCollection in the same way a lookup works: it is worthless without both the lookup value and the lookup source.
Related
I have a requirement to display a drop down menu for a String type in Hybris Management Console, restricting the value to some specific values.
As suggested in several forums, I tried to create this entry as an enumeration type but characters like '-' are to be allowed in the enumeration values, as this column receives some specific values which comprise of '-'.
How do I solve this issue?
The people advising you probably didn't understand your requirements. As such, an enumeration type is clearly not appropriate in this case. Consider the alternatives. Is there a Map Type available? What other type might allow you to achieve your goal?
Actually, you could use the hybris Enumeration. In hybris Enum Types have a code and a name. The code is the unique representation for this enum and cannot contain a "-". The name however is a localized representation of that value and can include every character your database is able to store. Have a look here:
https://help.hybris.com/6.5.0/hcd/8c895989866910148d6a802f06651702.html
Additionally, hybris enables you to dynamically create new enumeration values, which is kind of nice.
I ran across a problem for which I found no documented solution, but inadvertently found the solution myself. So I wanted to document this here for others who may encounter the same problem.
I was using a CAML query within SPServices to retrieve list items, then referencing "ows_{fieldname}" as usual to retrieve the field value for each list item. The field value was reported as "undefined" for all items. I quintuple-checked that I was specifying the proper name of the field and that my query was properly constructed.
I eventually discovered that the fields I was trying to reference were not displayed in the default view of the list. As soon as I changed the list properties to include the fields in the default view, the proper field values were returned within my javascript.
I don't know how much of Sharepoint's underpinnings work, but I was very surprised at my finding because it implies that the SPServices GetListItems method gets its data from the list's default view, not the actual underlying list. I realize I could be wrong in this interpretation, but I imagine others could run into this same problem.
The default, although unreliable, way GetListItems works is that it's suppose to returns all fields displayed on the default list view if you don't specify ViewFields on input. This is unreliable. Although you got it working - now - someone could come along later and change the default view thus breaking your sweet customization. Bummer. :)
I suggest always listing the ViewFields you are interested in on the GetListItems method. This ensures that your will get them if they are set. That's right. You could still get rows with an undefined field. This happens mostly on fields of type Lookup that are not set on a row.
Hope this helps you understand what is going on. Over the years I have created my own wrappers around SPServices to ensure I get back a reference to all fields requested, even if they are not in the response by Sharepoint.
When using SPServices' GetListItems method, be sure that any fields that you reference from the list are included in the list's default view, otherwise an undefined value will be returned.
I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle a requirement I have for an Orchard module I'm building.
I have a ContentPart that has a few fields. One field is a ContentPicker that allows for multiple items to be associated to the part. The rest are descriptive information.
The issue I have is that I actually need to be able to include more than one of this ContentPart into a ContentType. I need to create a ContentType that has exactly 3 of this part.
Should I be making this into a field instead of a part? Is it even possible to have a ContentField that has other fields in it?
Or, should I somehow use all the same models and data structures, but somehow define it as 3 distinct parts?
Just wondering what the best practice to do something like this would be.
You can only have one part of each kind on a given type. You can't have fields that have other fields in it (instead - take an existing field and extend it with custom stuff).
As I understand, the actual problem is "how to make groups of fields with some metadata for each group", right? If so, there are a few approaches to solve the problem:
Create a custom field based on Content Picker (basically - take existing Content Picker and extend it with your metadata) and use this without the need for a separate part
Create one part to hold only the metadata for each field attached to it and attach 1 or more fields to it
Create 3 distinct parts. Parts should be thought of as extensions that add some unique features to an item. If you think it's logically ok to have 3 parts then go for it.
I have an odd issue.
I have client that wants a sharepoint list what is populated from a WCFService. That part is working quite well.
I have a bdcmodel that is mapping the WCF data and I can create an external list from the bdcmodel as well so that is working fine.
The issue I have is that one of the properties in the model is actually a collection of entities called Attributes. The objects in this collection simply have 2 properties Name and Value so really they are just a key value pair.
The client wants to see the list of attributes of the parent entity in the external list. So there would be an Attributes column and within that column would be the list of attributes for each parent object.
Is there even a way to do this? I am looking into Custom Field Types, but it seems like these are really intended to be singular values.
How would I create a list within and external list?
Any help anyone can give would be great even if its just to tell me that there really isn't a stable way to do this so I can go back to the client and tell them we will need to build a custom list to support this because the OOB external list and custom fields and custom field types won't support this kind of nested listing.
I decided to set up the custom field as a string and when I get my collection in from the BdcModel I am serializing it to JSON and then passing it to the field. When the field is viewed in display, edit or new I have overridden the FieldRenderingControl and I am tiling the collection out that way.
There is exisiting content type with columns described as xml schemes. We have to change column types of that content type to lookup. The problem is that content type of list doesn't inherit content type of the site that is described with those xml files. Can you please help?
The problem with setting a field to a lookup is that the definition of the lookup relies on the definition of the list already being set.
You would be better off creating new fields for the lookups in the derived content types.
It is hard to know the best approach without more information.