This project is read-only.

Prevent duplicate work and waste of time. Best way to tell everyone I'm working on a specific feature

Topics: Announcements, General
Apr 12, 2013 at 2:23 PM
Edited Apr 12, 2013 at 6:21 PM
Currently I'm working on a feature which makes it possible to separate editor fields and parts in different tabs in the back-end for content items.

Because I don't know if there's any better location then the discussion forum, I posted it in here.

I'm hoping to show this feature at the upcoming meeting
Apr 12, 2013 at 9:10 PM
Have you followed the previous one when we talked about the suggested implementation ?

If it's like we said, it will be make it into core. If not, ... ;)
Apr 13, 2013 at 6:50 AM
Edited Apr 13, 2013 at 8:54 AM
I'm not really sure if it's exactly how discussed during meeting so here's how it works currently:
  • Next to the Edit Placements button I've added a buttton "Edit Tabs"
  • On the "Edit Tabs" page you can create and edit by drag and drop tabs which are afterwards saved in the contentTypeDefinition settings
  • After you have created the tabs you can go to edit placements and drag and drop those parts and fields on the right tab and placement.
  • Currently though I have made a dropdownselect list for each part and field so I could test the behavior.
  • The Tabs are shown just by jQuery and makes no changes to postsbacks or anything. So serverside with drivers,etc. stays the same.
Do you have some feedback and can you tell me is this is matching with the discussion during the meeting?
Apr 15, 2013 at 5:55 PM
Apr 15, 2013 at 6:03 PM
That looks promising!
Question: how will the content item render when used in a Custom Control on the front end? Will it simply ignore the tabs and apply the configured placement?
Apr 15, 2013 at 6:30 PM
Yes the tabs are only rendered in the backend. No frontend code is touched. The placement editor for content types are just for backend content editors.
Apr 15, 2013 at 6:49 PM
What does the implementation look like ? Did you update the placement strategy I had done for the backend placement ?
Maybe the tabs management could be merged with the placement editor.

Initially we had thought that tabs could be defined by the shapes themselves in the, so there is a default, and users can change it. Is it compatible with this technique ? It all relies on how you render those tabs actually. I think we had decided in the meeting to use the zone name, with a specific syntax to define a tab. Something like Content[Security]:5 or Content:5@Security. I don't recall it exactly, maybe there is a bug open with the details, but I think it should be the solution.

Maybe the tabs list is hard to handle because they can be defined by the placement files, and also by the user. Maybe you can just add/remove custom tabs, and display the merged list in the placement editor.
Apr 15, 2013 at 7:25 PM
Edited Apr 15, 2013 at 7:40 PM
The current implementation only uses the database.

It saves the defined tabs list in the content type definition record just like the backend placements in a property named "ContentTypeSettings.Tabs"
It saves the position of each part and field in the backend placements with the property name "tab"

I'm gonna try to implement the placement syntax: Content:5@Security. Merging the tabs sounds good.

One question though: When you have edited placements in the backend and you have defined also placements in the Which of the two types if leading at the moment, database or
Apr 17, 2013 at 7:36 AM
Edited Apr 17, 2013 at 7:36 AM
Update after meeting yesterday:
  • I've implemented in Content:5#Security. Because this new format would be break the current location code, I removed the #Security string part from the placement.location property after I've have set the Tab property. This way it won't break the current placement location format. Of course we could consider a different format for defining tabs in placement.
  • I'm gonna auto merge the new defined tab from files with the defined tabs in database.
  • The current implementation makes the database placement leading over the files. Is that ok or do you have some other ideas for that?
I'll send the code in the beginning of next week