What is the purpose of this field? I am looking to use it for something but I want to make sure it's not contrary to its intended purpose.
It is not used and is not in the form, but it is carried around (to and from the price journal).
It could be used as an (external?) reference number.
To solve similar problems, use the cross reference system. Right-click the field, Add-ins, Cross reference, Used by. Requires an initial update of the cross reference system. I recommend it highly.
Related
To prioritize the engineering effort around Requirements in a defined way, I came to the idea to use the information already added for the FMEA.
For this I have created a Stereotype named fmeaRelevant (will be named better later), which has several Tags.
My target now is to first calculate the averages of all of these Tags and then from these the average RPN, which is again a Tag.
For this, I have already created a ConstrainedProperty, which has the respective ConstrainedParameters and Constraints.
BindingConnectors are created between the ConstrainedParameters of the ConstraintProperty and the Tags of the Stereotype.
The Stereotype is assigned to my Requirements.
However, Open ConstraintView ... does not show me anything.
Is there anything I am missing?
P.S.: I am not sure how to provide something like a source code snippet for model content. If one makes a proposal in a comment, I will add this.
You used binding connectors between stereotype properties and constraint parameters? That should not be possible, since they are on different levels. The parameters are on the model level and the stereotype properties are on the language level.
Of course, Rhapsody sometimes allows strange things, so it might well be, that there is a way to get it running.
The RPN relates to an actual hazordous situation. Your model describes this situation and all values relating to the situation should therefore be value properties of the FMEAitem. This element would be defined in a library. By the way, this is how it's done in the new RAAML-specification, which might be a useful reference.
Can anyone actually explain, in layman's terms, what is a real-world use case for the set operation's options?
While I fully understand what set with merge does, as well as merge beeing a boolean and mergeFields being an array of fieldPaths, I cannot think of cases in which mergeFields might be of any use.
I also understand the fact that mergeFields basically acts like a mask for the object passed to the set operation, but I still cannot think of how is it so useful that it actually got implemented within the SDK.
Can someone shed some light?
After looking through the documentation, there seem to be two reasons why you might want to use one vs the other:
mergeFieldPaths/mergeFields trigger an error when passing in field values that don't currently exist on the document while merge will add in those fields if they don't exist. The error is good for safety purposes if you're concerned about typos/writing to incorrect field paths.
This one is just a guess, but the documentation indicates mergeFieldPaths/mergeFields ignores AND leaves fields untouched while merge ONLY leaves other fields untouched. It's possible there's some performance advantage to using mergeFieldPaths/mergeFields esp for documents with a ton of fields. The difference might be direct access vs still needing to look at unspecified fields to identify the matches in some way.
SetOptions Reference
I've assumed there was something unique or special about the default Tridion groups (e.g. Editor, Chief Editor, etc) because creating a new Publication seemed to get these groups automatically.
I actually see that new publications get all of the groups in its assigned parent upon creation, it's not necessarily because they're default groups.
Can I delete these default groups? Aside from the out-of-the-box workflow options, any reason to leave these in Tridion from a programming or technical perspective?
New Publications outside of an existing BluePrint will pick up the default rights from the default groups. If you don't need any out of the box settings, you should be OK deleting them (but I have never tried, so it may not be possible). In the database they have a special flag (IS_DEFAULT_GROUP).
I tend to use them for controlling rights, and make my other groups members of Authors,and Editors etc so that I get some basic rights out of the box for all publications.
In the original design of R5 security it was possible to delete the predefined groups, and this was intentional. If you are getting a specific message telling you it is not possible, then this constraint must have been added later, presumably as code was re-written for 2011.
The thinking back in R5 was that the predefined groups would offer a good "out-of-the-box" experience, and save people some configuration. (And of course, it offered backwards compatibility with R4.) Other features echoed this: for example, if you create a publication in a blueprint, the Rights of predefined groups are cloned from the parent publication. For groups you've created yourself, this doesn't happen. After all - if you've chosen to go for a custom security set-up it's reasonable to expect you to customise everything yourself, right?
I can't think of a good reason for preventing their deletion. Perhaps someone thought the "custom" approach was just too unfriendly, but I'm speculating. (Anyone know the real reason?)
No, it is not possible to delete a predefined group -- you will always get an error saying as much.
I can't speak as to the reasons for this, but I imagine the fact that they are used for new Publications is at least part of the reason.
You are not required to actually use them, though.
We have a requirement to allow customising our core product and adding additional fields on a per client basis e.g. People entity some client wants to record their favourite colour etc. As far as I know we can't add properties to EF at runtime as it needs classes defined at startup. Each customer has their own database but we are deploying the same solution to all customers with all additional code. We are then detecting which customer they are and running customer specific services etc.
Now the last thing I want is to be forking my project or alternatively adding all fields for all clients. This would seem likely to become a nightmare. Also more often than not the extra fields would only be required in a very limited amount of place. Maybe some reports, couple of screens etc.
I found this article from Jermey Miller http://codebetter.com/jeremymiller/2010/02/16/our-extension-properties-story/ describing how they are adding extension properties and having them go from domain to the web front end.
Has anyone else implemented anything similar using EF? How did it work out? Are there any blogs/samples that anyone has seen? I am not sure if I am searching for the right thing even if someone could tell me the generic name for what we want to do that would help. I'm guessing it is a problem that comes up for other people.
Linked question still requires some forking or implementing all possible extensions in single solution because you are still creating strongly typed extensions upfront (= you know upfront what extensions customer wants). It is not generally extensible solution. If you want generic extensible solution you must leave strongly typed world and describe extensions as data.
You will need to use some metamodel. Your entity classes will contain only properties used by all customers and navigation property to special extension entity (additional table per every extensible entity) where you will be able to put additional properties as name / value pair (you can add other columns like type, validation, etc. if needed).
This will in general moves part of your model from hardcoded scenario to configuration based scenario and your customers will even be allowed to define extensions at runtime (if you implement such feature).
Let's say I'm creating some app documentation. In creating a content type for functions, I have a text field for name, a box for a general description, and a couple other basic things. Now I need something for storing arguments to the function. Ideally, I'd like to input these as key-value pairs, or just two related fields, which can then be repeated as many times as needed for the given function. But I can't find any way to accomplish this.
The closest I've gotten is an abandonded field multigroup module that says to wait for CCK3, which hasn't even produced an alpha yet as far as I can tell and whose project page makes no obvious mention of this multi-group functionality. I also checked the CCK issue queue and don't think I saw it in there, either.
Is there a current viable way of doing this I'm not seeing? Viable includes "you're thinking of this the wrong way and do X instead." I've considered using a "Long text and summary" field, but that smells hackish and I don't know if I'd be setting myself up for side-effects. I'm new to Drupal.
There is the http://drupal.org/project/field_collection module but it's not yet ready. Right now you would need to implement your entity alas to do this :( not easy.
Not sure how well it would work, because it currently does a bit more (eg, forces to group pairs into categories and the keys need to be predefined) but you might want to have a look at http://drupal.org/project/properties.
You could create a these key-value fields on their own: create 2 regular fields that that can be added as often as needed.
So you have a x fields for the keys and x for the values. If this is only for you or other people it might work OK but usability wise, it's very ugly.
If you need to extract the fields from the function, to display it properly in a page template, you should propably use a different approach. Write the function with its arguemnts in a CCK field and in the template extract them as needed. The arguments are always (depending on language) in () and the different arguments are seperated by , so splitting them would by pretty easy.