When trying to update a Custom Content Model in Alfresco I decided to upload and activate a new copy and delete the old one. I found out this doesn't work.
So my question is what will happen now and how can I fix this?
What will happen where the two content models are the same?
What will happen where the two content models define the same aspect, but differently?
Does one take precedent over the other?
Would editing the 2 in the properties to be identical get around the problem?
Starting from scratch with this repository is an undesirable option at this time. I'm looking for the simplest solution possible.
It's not simple as that. If you already have some documents or folder associated with a model, you can't delete it without breaking your datas.
Also, Alfresco doesn't support multiple declarations of a model or type or aspect. If it's the case it doesn't start.
The only way you have to upload a new version of your model is by uploading a version containing ONLY added properties, types or aspects. If your new model's version contains modificated or deleted properties, types or aspects, you will have to migrate each node programaticaly.
Related
I have a Plone instance which contains some structures which I need to copy to a new Plone instance (but much more which should not be copied). Those structures are document trees ("books" of Archetypes folders and documents) which use resources (e.g. images and animations, by UID) outside those trees (in a separate structure which of course contains lots of resources not needed by the ones which need to be copied).
I tried already to copy the whole data and delete the unneeded parts, but this takes very (!) long, so I'm looking for a better way.
Thus, the idea is to traverse my little forest of document trees and transfer them and the resources they need (sparsely rebuilding that separate structure) to the new Plone instance. I have full access to both of them.
Is there a suggested way to accomplish this? Or should I export all of them, including the resources structure, and delete all unneeded stuff afterwards?
I found out that each time that I make this type of migration by hand, I make mistakes that force me to do it again.
OTOH, if migration is automated, I can run it, find out what I did wrong, fix the migration, and do it all over again until I am satisfied.
In this context, to automate your migration, I advise you to look at collective.transmogrifrier.
I recommend jsonmigrator - which is a twist on collective.transmogrifier mentioned by Godefroid. See my blog on it here
You can even use it to migrate from Archetypes to Dexterity types (you just need matching fieldnames (and matching types roughly speaking).
Trying to select the resources to import will be tricky though. Perhaps you can find a way to iterate through your document trees & "touch" (in a unix sense) any resource that you are using. Then copy across only resources whose "timestamp" indicates that they have been touched.
On a website with software documentation, I need to create a new version for a node always that the information changes for a new software release.
Here is an example:
For the product x version 1.0, I have a node (ID: 1000) that explains how to install the product.
When this product has a new release, the instructions need to change. Currently, what I do is to create a different node (ID: 1001) for product x version 2.0, also called how to install. The issue is that, since these two nodes are totally disconnected, as my database grows, managing these versions is getting too painful.
Ideally, I wouldn't have totally disconnected nodes for the same kind of information, but version that node as the product version changes. Is there any module that allows me to do it? If not, any idea on how to solve the issue?
Thank you
It sounds like you want to use node revisioning
https://www.drupal.org/node/320614
My approach would be to use a makeshift solution via entity reference and/or Rules. On a similar project, we used the Rules Link module to remove the author/ownership of the post but keep a reference for later processing by cloning the user entity in said rule to another field.
You could do the same: Automatically generate a new node with a reference to the old one and maybe copies of certain fields.
Depending on how much content you want to reuse, there's the Node Clone module and the Node clone on Save project seems like a fitting case, too (didn't test it).
Before the entity reference module got to be so mighty in Drupal 7 I often heard that sharing a common taxonomy term between 2 nodes would be another easy way to keep nodes „bundled“ – I'm not sure about the UX implications though.
Sorry, seeing that you're talking about documentation, another solution would be to simply activate the Books module and define a book for each product with the different versions as pages (see Drupal documentation as reference – you can easily style the structure, e.g. as tabs).
The module uses the menu system (up to Drupal 7) to keep a simple structure on top of the existing nodes. This approach has its UX limits on very large node counts.
Using the Book Made Simple module you can automatically generate a book on node creation.
In the past I've heard that it can be dangerous to rename the Plone site object(change it's id).
Is renaming dangerous? What are the potential issues when renaming?
The problem seems to be in the references (from http://plone.293351.n2.nabble.com/Renaming-the-Plone-object-via-ZMI-td4428462.html):
I am trying to rename the Plone object via the Zope Management Interface, however as a side effect, all references I have on "reference_catalog" are lost, including LinguaPlone translations, related content and the path criteria from collections.
I am using Plone 3.1.7, and you can reproduce the problem by creating a vanilla Plone object, add some Documents with related content pointing to each other, add a Folder and Collection, and add a path criterion to the collection, pointing to that folder. Check "reference_catalog". After that, rename the portal object and "reference_catalog" will be empty.
Is there any sollution for this problem?"
Which was answered with:
You need to update your catalog, since the plone object's id is the
first element of the path of all your content.
http://plone.org/documentation/error/portal-content-has-gone-missing/
In the thread there are some links to scripts to avoid losing references.
Any reference to an object that is stored as a path will be a problem. As Yuri's answer points out, that includes the paths in catalogs. That's a relatively easy one to deal with, by doing a full rebuild of the catalog. There are other issues that may be harder to find, such as paths within collection criteria and portlet data.
We have a CRM 2011 managed solution that includes some changes to a standard entity (account) - i.e. new form and some extra fields. In most cases, we can install without a problem as the changes are merged. However we have encountered some instances where a client has renamed the Account entity to something else (Company) as an unmanaged chage (including view names) and our solution changes the entity name and view changes back to 'Account' when installed, based on the 'last one wins' rule.
My question is, is it possible to protect un-managed changes, so that we do not overwrite un-merged changes? i.e. similar to Managed Properties?
Any suggestions would be most appreciated.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is possible although maybe I don't fully understand what you are aiming to do. When you export a solution it will save a snapshot of all the included components. When you reimport, it should set all of the included components as they were when you exported them. If you exported the account entity with a customized name, what sort of logic would you want in place to disallow that change to be imported?
If anyone else has a solution to this, I'd be glad to see it but I haven't come across one yet.
We have a content-type built using CCK. One of the fields is a node reference. The node picker is using a view to build the options.
A few days ago, everything was working well.
Today, it looks like all node reference fields using views to populate the selection options are displaying the wrong label. Every single label in the option is ``A'', but the actual node number is correct. The form actually works, just the labels are incorrect.
We have tried just about every combination of edit/save, disable/enable, reboot, clear cache, clone the view, rebuild the view, new view, etc, but we still have a big list of As.
If we create a brand new content type with a brand new node reference field, we get the problem.
Through some backup/restore exercises, we have determined that the problem is actually in the database and not in the code.
We can restore our last good backup, but we will lose a decent amount of work we have put into other parts of the database.
We enabled mysql query logging, and the view is actually being called properly, but we cannot track down where the problem is creeping in after that (unraveling the CCK / Views / Drupal plumbing is a challenge).
The install was build with latest stable versions as of April.
The problems referred to in http://drupal.org/node/624422 is similar, but our code versions include the patches mentioned.
Any ideas would be appreciated. Thanks.
I had a similar problem with using views for node reference, after quite a lot of hair pulling it turned out to be that my caching layer was buggy. I was using memcached, but memcached wasn't truned on on the server. It may be worth checking.
Thanks for the responses. We finally got to the bottom of this.
There was a module that was doing a custom hook_views_post_render() that did a prep_replace to rewrite some output. Unknown to us, there are instances where the $output parameter isn't a string, but an array, and this was causing the problem. One of those instances happens to be when you attach a view to a build a select in CCK.