Search Results

Search found 16 results on 1 pages for 'ccomet'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Negative ItemCount in SharePoint Document Library

  - by ccomet

  What can be done about negative numbers in library item counts? ItemCount is a read-only property, what are you supposed to do when it is drastically incorrect? Earlier last week, I was doing some testing involving the copying and moving of files and folders from one document library to another. I was transfering the items from our actual document library to a sandbox "Test" library that I used to run all sorts of object model and workflow testing in before migrating to the public lists and libraries. I noticed that with files, things worked correctly, but when I copied a folder that had a file inside it (using SPFolder.CopyTo()), the item count for the test library did not actually update. Since this testing was mostly playing around, I paid it little heed. Today I was back in the test library to test a different workflow (regarding PDF conversion). While I was there, I decided to delete the folder I left last week since I didn't need it anymore. And that's when I saw the item count for the list drop to -1 in the All Site Content View. When I deleted the new PDF I had just uploaded, it then dropped to -2! I even checked with the object model... getting an instance of the library I checked the ItemCount property... lo and behold it was also -2. Is there any process which runs in the background, kinda like the one that cleans up workflow history, which will correct this kind of issue? Or is a programmer expected to keep watch for this kind of situation and come up with calculations to compensate the "count penalty", as it were?

  Read the article

• Feature element repeatedly added with every feature activation/deactivation

  - by ccomet

  This is a very minor behavior when compared with the entire scope, but it is one that I'd like to put a stop to. I have created a very, very simple SharePoint Feature. It has two elements in its manifest: an aspx webpart page, and an elements xml. I'll paraphrase my elements xml, which just adds a module, below. <Elements xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/"> <Module Name="Pass" Url="" Path=""> <File Url="pasq.aspx" NavBarHome="True" Type="Ghostable"> <AllUsersWebPart WebPartZoneID="Left" WebPartOrder="0"> <![CDATA[ WARGH THIS PART DOESN'T MATTER FOR THIS QUESTION! ]]> </AllUsersWebPart> </File> </Module> </Elements> Now, on the first time I deploy and activate this feature, it works properly. But if I have to deactivate and then reactivate the feature in order to fix some properties in the webpart, then I find myself with a second webpart on the page. Naturally, each similar cycle will just add more and more. I understand that a new webpart must be created in order to employ the changes I just made, but why is the old webpart still on the page? Can I make this older webpart go away automatically as part of the feature activation/deactivation process without needing to employ a Receiver class?

  Read the article

• Non-deprecated code for detecting whether a SharePoint User has a specific Permission Level

  - by ccomet

  In our application, we have some forms which need to show some data specifically if the current user has a specific permission level. These users belong to an SPGroup which includes users who should not see this data, so in this particular case I cannot filter based off of group membership. My current solution has been to use web.CurrentUser.Roles and use a simple check on whether it contains a permission level of the correct name. Roles is of the deprecated SPRole class, so I am bombarded with warning messages despite the fact it technically works. It suggests that I use SPRoleAssignment or SPRoleDefinition (the recommendation seems arbitrary since some lines recommend one while others recommend the other even though it is being used for the same thing). However, I cannot seem to find any method to directly retrieve an SPRoleAssignment or SPRoleDefinition object from an SPUser or SPPrincipal object, nor can I retrieve either object corresponding specifically to the current user of the SPWeb object. How can I update these methods to use non-deprecated code? I've found other cases of determining user permissions, but I haven't found one that will work from a starting point of the current web or the current user. It's not urgent, but it certainly is helpful to avoid having to sift through all of those warnings just to reach the more important warnings.

  Read the article

• Append a dynamically changing watermark to a PDF in SharePoint

  - by ccomet

  This is primarily a question of possibilities more than instructions. I'm a programming consultant working on a WSS project site system for my client. We have a document library in which files are uploaded to go through a complex approval process. With multiple stages in this process, we have an extra field which dictates what the current status of the document is. Now, my client has become enamored with the idea of PDF watermarking. He wants the document (which is already a PDF) to be affixed with a watermark corresponding to the current status, such that with each stage of the approval process the watermark will change. One method, the traditional method for PDF watermarking, of accomplishing this is to have one "clean" copy of the document somewhere hidden on the site, and create a new PDF from it that has the watermark at each stage of the approval process. Since the filename will never change, this new PDF can be uploaded continually to a public library, always overwriting the old version and simulating a "dynamically changing watermark". However, in the various stages there will also be people uploading clean copies with corrections and suggestions, nevermind the complex nature of juggling around two libraries and the fact we double the number of files stored. My client and I agree that this is not a practical path to choose. What we would like to do is be able to "modify" the watermark in a PDF, so that we only have to keep one copy of the file. Unfortunately, from what I've seen, in most cases when you make something like a watermark, which in its nature is supposed to be "unmodifyable", you won't be able to edit it later. So, is it possible to have a part of a PDF which cannot be changed by anyone who downloads the file, but can be changed as part of a workflow or other object model process? Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• Temporary "Backup" of SharePoint Content During Feature and Solution Deployment

  - by ccomet

  I need to decide on a method for storing a subset of the content in a SharePoint site, so that when I delete and recreate certain lists as part of a feature activation, I can re-insert all of this content back where it should belong. I have an idea myself, but I don't know if it's the only method and more importantly, the right method. My client has me creating a SharePoint system for them to communicate with their clients. The business process has maybe 5 stages in it (maybe it's more, I don't even know because they don't tell me everything), and the current system I've written over the past months is maybe 2 stages through. This meets our deadline of completing those systems by Monday next week... but at that point my client is planning on making the site live from that point. In effect, their work with their clients will be running parallel with my work for them. As I complete my own work on a separate test server, I'll push each following stage of the process onto the live server. Scheduled downtimes during non-business times (like a weekend) will be available for me to perform these pushes. Keeping pace so that my development is faster than the actual business process is my own problem and off-topic... so let's get back to the problem I stated at the start of this post. In this system, we have sets of features which will create lists for their associated content types and field types when activated, and delete these lists when the feature is deactivated. Most updates don't need to deactivate and reactivate these features, such as workflow changes, custom actions, custom forms, and similar ilk. But there are some parts which do require this. On my test server, it's okay for me to obliterate lists, but once the site is live and there's real correspondence data, it's absolutely unacceptable to do this. So when I need to implement a new change in functionality, I need to be able to store the currently present data in several lists, deactivate the feature, reactivate the feature, and restore all of this data. Perhaps I have hoist myself by my own petard with the feature system I implemented. Unfortunately, the necessity to later on make several of these "project sites" meant I had to do a lot of my code with the concept of "Can be deployed repeatedly" in mind. My current plan is to run through lists and libraries which will be affected by the particular feature that is to be reset. Files and all of their versions will be saved in a directory on the server. Then, a set of text files will be used to store all of the important field values for the items. This includes a lot of cross-list reference lookups that will need to be maintained, but that's simple enough. Then, I deactivate the feature, deploy the new solution, and reactivate the feature. We upload all of the files in the order specified by their versions and update them with the stored fields for those versions, so that we retain the version structure. As each one is first uploaded, the new ID is picked out, and all relevant lookups in the rest of the files are updated (in some manner that I make sure I don't re-update it later with an incorrect value, of course). After that, we run through all the rest of the items in the order most conducive to keeping the relational data correct. This roughly summarizes what my current plan is. To my advantage, there are no long running workflows in the system that will be affected by this, so there's nothing I will have to worry about making sure nothing is "still running" when I do this stuff. I don't really know all the cons of this approach... I can imagine they're quite hefty. But I'm unsure what other choices I even have, and my searches haven't turned up anything. Is there anyone who can think of a better idea? Or will anyone just tell me that I really have no other choice? Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• How can I ensure my programmatic uploads are done in the correct order?

  - by ccomet

  In our application, we store two copies of a file - an approved one and an unapproved one. Both track their versions separately. When the unapproved is then approved, all of its versions are added as new versions to the approved file. To do this properly, my code has to upload each version separately into the approved folder, and update the item each time with that version's information. For some reason, though, this doesn't always work properly. In my latest scenario, the latest version was uploaded first, and then all of the remaining versions were uploaded afterwards. However, my code explicitly is supposed to upload the other versions first, that's the order I wrote it in. Why is this happening? And if it is possible, how do I ensure that the versions are uploaded in the correct order? Clarification - It's not a problem with the enumeration - I'm getting the previous versions in the correct order. What is happening is that the final version, which is written after the loop, is being uploaded before the loop. Which really doesn't make any sense to me. Here's a condensed version of the relevant code. //These three are initialized earlier in the code. SPList list; //The document library SPListItem item; //The list item in the Unapproved folder int AID; //The item id of the corresponding item in the Approved folder. byte[] contents; //Not initialized. /* These uploads are happening second when they should happen first. */ if (item.File.Versions.Count > 0) { //This loop is actually a separate method call if that matters. //For simplicity I expanded it here. foreach (SPFileVersion fVer in item.File.Versions) { if (!fVer.IsCurrentVersion) { contents = fVer.OpenBinary(); SPFile fSub = aFolder.Files.Add(fVer.File.Name, contents, u1, fVer.CreatedBy, dt1, fVer.Created); SPListItem subItem = list.GetItemById(AID); //This method updates the newly uploaded version with the field data of that version. UpdateFields(item.Versions.GetVersionFromLabel(fVer.VersionLabel), subItem); } } } /* This upload happens first when it should happen last. */ //Does the same as earlier loop, but for the final version. contents = item.File.OpenBinary(); SPFile f = aFolder.Files.Add(item.File.Name, contents, u1, u2, dt1, dt2); SPListItem finalItem = list.GetItemById(AID); UpdateFields(item.Versions[0], finalItem); item.Delete();

  Read the article

• How do I stall until a SharePoint List Item is Deleted with SPLongOperation?

  - by ccomet

  I have a workflow, which creates a task and deletes it after the task is edited and its useful information acquired. I created a custom edit form for the task, so I have an SPLongOperation that I can use to stall the page. This is necessary, because if I don't stall the page in some fashion, the person will see the task in the task list for the minute moment before the workflow gets to delete the task, and that is bad. So some code to stall the page until the task is fully deleted is necessary. I have currently implemented a solution for this, but I am unsatisfied with the approach. It basically is summed up to a while loop that calls SPList.GetItemById until it throws an error. Delibrately attempting to cause an error doesn't sit well with me, but I cannot think of a faster method for checking this. I'm looking for alternatives that would preferably work faster if not as fast, and preferably without relying on catching exceptions. Thank you in advance!

  Read the article

• When is it better to use a method versus a property for a class definition?

  - by ccomet

  Partially related to an earlier question of mine, I have a system in which I have to store complex data as a string. Instead of parsing these strings as all kinds of separate objects, I just created one class that contains all of those objects, and it has some parser logic that will encode all properties into strings, or decode a string to get those objects. That's all fine and good. This question is not about the parser itself, but about where I should house the logic for the parser. Is it a better choice to put it as a property, or as a method? In the case of a property, say public string DataAsString, the get accessor would house the logic to encode all of the data into a string, while the set accessor would decode the input value and set all of the data in the class instance. It seems convenient because the input/output is indeed a string. In the case of a method, one method would be Encode(), which returns the encoded string. Then, either the constructor itself would house the logic for the decoding a string and require the string argument, or I write a Decode(string str) method which is called separately. In either case, it would be using a method instead of a property. So, is there a functional difference between these paths, in terms of the actual running of the code? Or are they basically equivalent and it then boils down to a choice of personal preference or which one looks better? And in that kind of question... which would look cleaner anyway?

  Read the article

• Is it safe to use random Unicode for complex delimiter sequences in strings?

  - by ccomet

  Question: In terms of program stability and ensuring that the system will actually operate, how safe is it to use chars like ¦, § or ‡ for complex delimiter sequences in strings? Can I reliable believe that I won't run into any issues in a program reading these incorrectly? I am working in a system, using C# code, in which I have to store a fairly complex set of information within a single string. The readability of this string is only necessary on the computer side, end-users should only ever see the information after it has been parsed by the appropriate methods. Because some of the data in these strings will be collections of variable size, I use different delimiters to identify what parts of the string correspond to a certain tier of organization. There are enough cases that the standard sets of ;, |, and similar ilk have been exhausted. I considered two-char delimiters, like ;# or ;|, but I felt that it would be very inefficient. There probably isn't that large of a performance difference in storing with one char versus two chars, but when I have the option of picking the smaller option, it just feels wrong to pick the larger one. So finally, I considered using the set of characters like the double dagger and section. They only take up one char, and they are definitely not going to show up in the actual text that I'll be storing, so they won't be confused for anything. But character encoding is finicky. While the visibility to the end user is meaningless (since they, in fact, won't see it), I became recently concerned about how the programs in the system will read it. The string is stored in one database, while a separate program is responsible for both encoding and decoding the string into different object types for the rest of the application to work with. And if something is expected to be written one way, is possibly written another, then maybe the whole system will fail and I can't really let that happen. So is it safe to use these kind of chars for background delimiters?

  Read the article

• How do I distinguish a SharePoint file update as being from a file upload?

  - by ccomet

  In SharePoint, when an item is first added to a document library, it fires the ItemAdded and ItemAdding events as expected. And if you upload the same filename to update the existing file, it will fire off ItemUpdated and ItemUpdating events, likewise as expected. However, I have been unsuccessful at determining whether this kind of action has actually occurred or not. Or, more specifically, I am entirely unable to differentiate between the following: An item is updated because someone uploaded a new file but did nothing to any of the form fields. An item is updated because someone hit "OK" but did nothing to any of the form fields. Is there actually a way to distinguish these kinds of updates? There appears to be nothing in event properties that contains this information, nor in the version history for both the list item and the file itself. I have even tried comparing the files themselves via OpenBinary(), but in both mentioned cases I still get the same result. Thank you in advance for any help!

  Read the article

• Is there a significant mechanical difference between these faux simulations of default parameters?

  - by ccomet

  C#4.0 introduced a very fancy and useful thing by allowing default parameters in methods. But C#3.0 doesn't. So if I want to simulate "default parameters", I have to create two of that method, one with those arguments and one without those arguments. There are two ways I could do this. Version A - Call the other method public string CutBetween(string str, string left, string right, bool inclusive) { return str.CutAfter(left, inclusive).CutBefore(right, inclusive); } public string CutBetween(string str, string left, string right) { return CutBetween(str, left, right, false); } Version B - Copy the method body public string CutBetween(string str, string left, string right, bool inclusive) { return str.CutAfter(left, inclusive).CutBefore(right, inclusive); } public string CutBetween(string str, string left, string right) { return str.CutAfter(left, false).CutBefore(right, false); } Is there any real difference between these? This isn't a question about optimization or resource usage or anything (though part of it is my general goal of remaining consistent), I don't even think there is any significant effect in picking one method or the other, but I find it wiser to ask about these things than perchance faultily assume.

  Read the article

• Are there solutions for streamlining the update of legacy code in multiple places?

  - by ccomet

  I'm working in some old code which was originally designed for handling two different kinds of files. I was recently tasked with adding a new kind of file to this code. Most of my problems were solved by filling out an extensive XML file with a new entry that handled everything from what lists were named to how the file is written in plural lower case. But this ended up being insufficient, as there were maybe 50 different places in 24 different code files where I had to update hardcoded switch-statements that only branched for the original two file types. Unfortunately there is no consistency in this; there are methods which operate half from the XML file, and half off of hardcode. Some of the files which look like they would operate off of the XML file don't, and some that I would expect that I'd need to update the hardcode don't need it. So the only way to find the majority of these is to run through testing the whole system when only part of it is operational, finding that one step to fix (when I'm lucky that error logging actually tells me what is going on), and then running the whole thing again. This wastes time testing the parts of the code which are already confirmed to work, time better spent testing the new parts I have to add on top of it all. It's a hassle and a half, and to my luck I can expect that I will have to add yet another new kind of file in the near future. Are there any solutions out there which can aid in this kind of endeavour? Something which I can input some parameters of current features, document what points in a whole code project actually need to be updated, and run something nice the next time I need to add a new feature to the code. It needn't even be fully automated, something that'll help me navigate straight to the specific points in everything and maybe even record what kind of parameters need to be loaded. Doubt it matters specifically, but the code is comprised of ASP.NET pages, some ASP.NET controls, hundreds of C# code files, and a handful of additional XML files. It's all currently in a couple big Visual Studio 2008 projects.

  Read the article

• What is a proper way to store site-level global variables in a SharePoint site?

  - by ccomet

  One thing that has driven me nuts about SharePoint2007 is the apparent inability to have defineable settings that apply specifically to a site or site collection itself, and not the content. I mean, you have some pre-defined settings like the Site Logo, the Site Name, and various other things, but there doesn't appear to be anywhere to add new kinds of settings. The application I am working on needs to be able to create multiple kinds of "project site collections" that all follow a basic template, but have certain additional settings that apply specifically to that site collection and that one alone. In addition to the standard site name we also need to define the Project Number, the Project Name, and the Client Name. And given the requests of some of our clients, we also reach a point where we have to have configurable settings that alter how some of the workflows work, like whether files are marked with Letters or Numbers. Our current solution, which I'm hesitant about, has been to store an XML file on the SharePoint server. This file contains one node for each site collection, identified by the URL of the root site. Inside the node are all of the elements that need to be defined for that site collection. When we need them, we have to access the XML file (which will always require SPSecurity.RunWithElevatedPrivileges to access files right on the server) every time to load it and retrieve the data. There are a lot of automated processes which will have to do this, and I'm hesitant about the stability of this method when we reach hundreds of sites with thousands of files running tens of thousands of workflows, all wanting to access this file. Maybe they're unfounded worries, but I'd rather worry than risk everything breaking in a couple years. I was looking into the SPWeb object and found the AllProperties hashtable. It looks like just the kind of thing which might work, but I don't know how safe it is to be modifying this. I read through both MSDN and the WSS SDK but found nothing that clarified on adding completely new properties into AllProperties. Is it safe to use AllProperties for this kind of thing? Or is there yet another feature that I am missing, which could handle the concept of global variables at the site collection or site scope?

  Read the article

• Utility of List<T>.Sort() versus List<T>.OrderBy() for a member of a custom container class

  - by ccomet

  I've found myself running back through some old 3.5 framework legacy code, and found some points where there are a whole bunch of lists and dictionaries that must be updated in a synchronized fashion. I've determined that I can make this process infinitely easier to both utilize and understand by converging these into custom container classes of new custom classes. There are some points, however, where I came to concerns with organizing the contents of these new container classes by a specific inner property. For example, sorting by the ID number property of one class. As the container classes are primarily based around a generic List object, my first instinct was to write the inner classes with IComparable, and write the CompareTo method that compares the properties. This way, I can just call items.Sort() when I want to invoke the sorting. However, I've been thinking instead about using items = items.OrderBy(Func) instead. This way it is more flexible if I need to sort by any other property. Readability is better as well, since the property used for sorting will be listed in-line with the sort call rather than having to look up the IComparable code. The overall implementation feels cleaner as a result. I don't care for premature or micro optimization, but I like consistency. I find it best to stick with one kind of implementation for as many cases as it is appropriate, and use different implementations where it is necessary. Is it worth it to convert my code to use the LINQ OrderBy instead of using List.Sort? Is it a better practice to stick with the IComparable implementation for these custom containers? Are there any significant mechanical advantages offered by either path that I should be weighing the decision on? Or is their end-functionality equivalent to the point that it just becomes coder's preference?

  Read the article

• Rapid Opening and Closing System.IO.StreamWriter in C#

  - by ccomet

  Suppose you have a file that you are programmatically logging information into with regards to a process. Kinda like your typical debug Console.WriteLine, but due to the nature of the code you're testing, you don't have a console to write onto so you have to write it somewhere like a file. My current program uses System.IO.StreamWriter for this task. My question is about the approach to using the StreamWriter. Is it better to open just one StreamWriter instance, do all of the writes, and close it when the entire process is done? Or is it a better idea to open a new StreamWriter instance to write a line into the file, then immediately close it, and do this for every time something needs to be written in? In the latter approach, this would probably be facilitated by a method that would do just that for a given message, rather than bloating the main process code with excessive amounts of lines. But having a method to aid in that implementation doesn't necessarily make it the better choice. Are there significant advantages to picking one approach or the other? Or are they functionally equivalent, leaving the choice on the shoulders of the programmer?

  Read the article

• In an If-Else Statement for a method return, should an Else be explicitly stated if it can instead b

  - by ccomet

  I have a method that checks certain things and returns a Boolean based on those checks. It involves a single branching If section that checks about 5 conditions in sequence. If any of those conditions return true, then the method will return true;. If none of the conditions return true, then the method will return false;. Since the code after the If section will only run if none of the conditions are true, then that code is logically identical to including an actual Else statement. So is it a better idea to actually write in the Else statement for this kind of situation?

  Read the article

1