I need to modify the versions.aspx page... No idea how to nor do I know if this is something I should do?!? The root problem is on the history of our document we have effective and termination dates. Termination dates are kinda of the issue as they are not reflective in version history (when you look at the versions.aspx page). They are implied... but our users would like to see the termination date show up. I figured I could calculate it but I would need to update the versions.aspx page (haven't done anything like this before -- new to sharepoint dev). Alternatively I could create a new page to show history the way they want it and disable the ECB for version history... any advice or help?
Its is not recommended to touch any pages that are used by SharePoint (that is not supported by MS). You can fall back to second option you said and go ahead and create a new Page that will do what you want, you might need to do JavaScript hack to make the ECB point to the new URL.
Related
I have a basic knockoutjs project loading data from a SharePoint 2013 list scenario. Getting data and displaying data is easy, the problem that I'm running into is on the edit mode displaying the proper control. Everything should not be a textbox. This means the people picker control to dropdownmenus to calendar controls.
MSFT has some pretty good documentation on using the client side people picker control here"http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/jj713593.aspx
The problem that I have is calling this control inside my viewmodel.
Setting the value of the control doesn't look difficult courtesy of this blog post: http://www.sharepointcolumn.com/sp2013-setting-people-picker-value-in-newform-aspx/
I attempted to looking into computed values, but that doesn't seem to work. Does anyone have a blog post that I skipped over? The closest related post that I can find: http://yetanothersharepointblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/working-with-sharepoint-lookup-columns-in-knockout-js/
Lastly since it seems that I'm the only one doing this, does anyone think that I should not be reinventing the wheel with my forms and should just link each item to the appropriate SharePoint list item in edit or display view? I suppose that would be easier.
From a SharePoint Professional to another, I would highly recommend you to do that.
Just redirect the user to the item edit/display item page an let SharePoint take the leash of how to handle UI form elements.
Because, assume that you implement your custom form, what if the user decides to add one more site column to the list? Will you update your code to support another field?
From my personal experience with the beast I've come to the conclusion that structural implementation over already existent functionality tends to go wrong.
Also, if you have some kind of listing of items custom made and you want to provide editing, try to do something opening a pretty SP.UI.ModalDialog, its elegant and you use the sharepoint to do the work for you.
But it's just an advise.
Xpage (listPostits.xsp) has a "View" container control, where one of the column is set "show values in this column as links".
Now, here comes "Strange behaviour".
When i work with this application on my own (developer) PC (Win XP, Chrome or IE), the Domino generate the link, which can't be really processed:
/servername/db/postit/postit.nsf/listPostits.xsp/onePostit.xsp?documentId=many_numbers&action=editDocument
Namely, the Bold-marked portion shouldn't be there ! This portion is the name of the XPage, where the View control is in.
When i work with the application from other PC (Mac, Firefox) then i get the correct link (the same as above but without the XPage name inbetween):
/servername/db/postit/postit.nsf/onePostit.xsp?documentId=many_numbers&action=editDocument
update: let us leave for the moment the differencies in generated links between two machines. The first question is - why the extra portion is inserted into automatically generated link?
After playing around i think i might have found the reason for this strange behaviour. Namely, the "Substitution" Rules on the server side. One of them is to substitute "*/postit/all" with "/db/postit/postit.nsf/listPostits.xsp"
If i switch it off, then the Links are generated properly. Still, it's pretty strange to me that these settings influence the way Domino generates the links. I thought it works on the fly with them and those settings have nothing to do with the way how Links are generated inside the application.
So, the help now is needed regarding Web Site Rule Topic, but for that, i guess, i have to create another topic. But in case somebody has some good Info on this, please share it with me. I'm a bit confused at the moment :)
Final Update: Spent some more hours of testing and the results confirmed the initial idea.
If i open the page with the standart URL, i.e.
http://servername/db/postit/postit.nsf/listPostits.xsp then everything is fine, links are generated properly. When i however open the same page with short URL http://servername/postit/all , then server adds the substitute URL (db/postit/postit.nsf/listPostits.xsp) to every single link he generates automatically to be used as the link to open/edit the underlying document.
Is it bug or feature ? Don't know.
As a workaround (because i want to keep simple URL's for the application) i have to manually generate links.
I have a request form I'm working on, wherein different departemnts need to be able to update it. To minimize overlap and lost changes I'd like to be able to submit data from the new form to different lists, but I cannot find a way to do this.
Does anyone have any experience trying to do anything similar?
If you're familiar with JQuery andSPServices I could envisage a way to do this.
In the EditForm.aspx, add the JQuery and SPServices libraries. using the $.(document).Ready function, I'd do a quick item update with the SPServices and just copy a column with the same data, so in effect no change looks to have taken place. I'd add in the edit comments something like "Pseduo checkout to [name], [date_time]".
Then allow the user to edit the form as normal but in the code you've added, you trap the PreSave Action and check that the person trying to do the save is the same as the last modified - if it is, save as normal, otherwise, return false on the PreSave and it will be denied. When you actually allow the save, set the edit comments to something sensible.
To complete this, check before doing the pseudo checkout, that the last comments don't contain the psuedo checkout phrase so that you can prevent anyone opening/editing the form whilst somebody else is in the middle of an edit.
This gives a cheap and relatievly easy to implement Check-In/Check-Out for a list. Not perfect of course but should work well in most scenarios (not in datasheet though, so you might need to prevent that type of edit).
If you have two lists would you not then have the problem of potentially two requests for the same thing?
Does none of the version control options for the list solve the problem of potentially multiple concurrent editors?
While SPService is certainly a solution, but you will have to build a UI of ur own.
Try writing a event receiver, which can copy over item to another list as soon as it is created.
It will be nice if you can tell why you really want to have a copy of item in another list
i.e. Auditing purpose etc. , you can get a perfect solution for this in Forum
I have a wss 3.0 install which needs an "anonymous" discussion board. I can modify the view so no usernames are displayed, however when I click on "reply", the message I'm replying to shows up in the rich text box with the username of the previous poster.
Is there a way to remove that username? or Remove the previous posted text altogether? I've found the schema.xml file with lots of relevant info under the ..12\TEMPLATE\FEATURES\DiscussionsList\Discuss folder, but not sure if this is the easiest way to adjust this setting.
Any comments appreciated.
Best practice says that you should always create a custom list definition instead of trying to modify the OOB assets.
The easiest way to do this is take a copy of the 12\TEMPLATE\FEATURES\DiscussionsList\Discuss folder, modify the feature Ids and names so that its unique. Then your free to change the schema render template (i.e view schema) and modify the edit and display forms.
If you need to modfify the actual entry form you may consider a custom control template : http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa543922.aspx
Custom list definition : http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms466023.aspx
Agrothe,
I have a similar requirement (hide or mask the author inside the reply thread.). What exactly inside of schema.xml do you think will allow you to do accomplish that?
Not sure if the list forms are exposed to xslt. If so, then perhaps this is another approach.
FWIW, the other solutions I have investigated:
(1) A custom event handler. Unfortunately, I can't pinpoint which event fires when someone click reply.
(2) Anonymous blog comments (http://blogs.msdn.com/sharepoint/archive/2007/08/06/anonymous-comment-feature-for-sharepoint-blog-now-available-on-codeplex.aspx).
(3) the other thing I am considering, is to introduce a global anonymous active directory login, which users can use to post anonymously. Not ideal, but for the amount of time I have spent researching a solution, might be my last hope.
How can we restrict a user from saving the page?
Please provide some tips to disable File->Save and View Source options
EDIT: Obviously it can't be done, and probably shouldn't be attempted. But possibly a more interesting variant on this question is how can we make is sufficiently hard for a user to save a page in a usable format such that it is not worth their while doing so? The question doesn't pose a value, but say we were protecting an article subscription site where the user is paying a few hundred dollars per annum for continued access to text.
Since the page has been sent to the client, there will always be a way to get that information. Trying to stop a user from doing this will only frustrate them.
The only way to have a user not be able to save a file is to not send it to them.
While the best answer is "Don't do this," there are ways to make it more difficult for them. And since the point of this site is actually answer the question even if it's bad, here is the best way:
First you'll need to have the page open in a new window where you turn off the address bar and toolbar and everything else. That will make it so the user can't easily get to the File menu at all. To do this you'll need a "splash" page that the user loads to and then when they click a link, it opens the popup that serves the main content of your page. Details on how to create popups without things like the toolbar are here:
http://blazonry.com/javascript/windows.php
Then you'll want to add some javascript to each page that prevents the user from right clicking. Here is one method:
http://javascript.about.com/library/blnoright.htm
Finally, if it's your Javascript code that you don't want to be seen, then obfuscating your code is a pretty effective way to do that. They can still see the code if they have much know-how, but the obfuscated code would be a gigantic pain to actually interpret. There are lots of obfuscators out there; here is a free web-based one:
http://www.javascriptobfuscator.com/
This is far from foolproof. It will stop all "casual" users, but any power user will probably be able to easily figure out a way around it. Still if the idea is to at least prevent a good majority of it then this should suffice.
Update for updated question:
To address your new expanded question, I would say the best way to accomplish what you're saying is to use a format that supports DRM. Adobe Acrobat would probably be the best choice because almost everyone has the reader installed. You can prevent PDF files from being saved to the computer so that they can only be loaded from the webpage by a logged in user. The user could still do a screen capture of the document itself which I don't believe is preventable (unless Adobe Reader has some security in place for this, which they might) but it should be sufficient security for most uses.
Don't do it.
Seriously, if the user can see the page in their browser they can see the source code and/or save it to their computer.
You are fighting a losing battle here.
What about the browser's cache? It can be saved from there.
What about a print screen? That could also save the page.
The only way to prevent a user from saving something is to not show it to them in the first place.
It's really a waste of time and resources to try and do this in html as any method you use can be trivially circumvented.
Instead I would use some other technology to display the data - you can never get around a screen capture. but if you're for instance displaying text and you want to make it hard for the use to save that text for use elsewhere then possible options include
PDF - which can disable save and print. There are extensions to most popular web languages that will write a pdf on the fly. Indeed you might be as well just to go down the DRM route with Adobe and embed a document
Flash - most probably via Flex which could be used to write a general-purpose app to display text and images. The advantage of Flash is that it's easier to set up links than pdf.
Or something else, a custom java applet, or even a vrml plugin and display the text in 3D!
In all cases you could display text against a disruptive background to make OCR more difficult, and images could be watermarked. However nothing is going to stop a determined and resourceful viewer, although you can possibly make it sufficiently hard that it's not worth their time.
The least you can do is... the content is generated dynamically by Javascript. In that way, they cannot simply save it. Of course, in FX, they can still view the generated code and then copy&paste. however, normally people cannot save the page.
It shouldn't be an issue, but if you really don't want a user from seeing your code (javascript, css or html) for some reason, than you could use some obfuscation tool which makes the code less readable.
Try javascript "encoding" and obfuscation.
Something like
if(document.location == 'mydomain.com') {
content = getAjax('mycontent.xml');
// content will hold something like 72, 94, 81, 99, ... - encoded ASCII codes
document.write(String.fromCharCode(content));
}
It will always be possible to save the page, but for non-technical guys it will be harder to make it work.
There are 2 protections
domain name
converting ASCII
It's only pseudocode, but I think you get the idea.
add these to code sets in script tag
document.addEventListener('contextmenu', function (e) {
e.preventDefault();
});
document.onkeydown = function (e) {
return false;
};
I'd like to add one more method which, imho, is hard to circumvent: Ctrl+S! (for me, Apple+S)
how can we make is sufficiently hard for a user to save a page in a usable format such that it is not worth their while doing so
Nothing hard: add on every page: "Personal property of John Stealer, company Zetabeta, paid with credit card 756890987654, billing address ..., subscription expires 12/20".
This is an "extended text format" that I just invented... it has an amazing property: though it looks like a regular text, user is much less willing to print it out and give to others...