I am trying to use a simple freemarker macro in an XDocReport, but I couldn't find a way to add and call it.
<#macro address company>
<#if company.name??>${company.name}</#if>
<#if company.address??>${company.address}</#if>
</#macro>
Should be:
<#address company=c />
where c is your company object
You need to add MergeField (which has limit, you can divided in 2 fields) with text:
[#macro address company]
[#if company.name??]${company.name}[/#if]
[#if company.address??]${company.address}[/#if]
[/#macro]
And separated MergeField to call it (quotes,square brackets are important):
"[#address company=c1]"
Related
I need to source a value from a custom record field (type: decimal) to a field in employee record(type: decimal). when the custom record is created. Is there any way I can implement this in workflow or should I go for the script?
If I choose the script which script I need to write?
Actually, I am new to script.so can anyone show me some sample?
Sounds very much like business logic, and thus shouldn't be done in a template... but, maybe you have no choice, so you can write a function like this:
<#--
Returns if two sequences (Java List-s or Java arrays usually) are equal.
Items at the same index must have common comparable type, and no item
can be null, or else you may get an error!
-->
<#function sequencesEqual s1, s2>
<#if s1?size != s2?size>
<#return false>
</#if>
<#list s1 as i1>
<#if i1 != s2[i1?index]>
<#return false>
</#if>
</#list>
<#return true>
</#function>
Then you can do things like <#if sequencesEqual(foo, bar)>...</#if>.
I want to extend the additionalAttributes with a second Attribute. In the original Partials it looks like this:
<f:form.password
id="femanager_field_password_repeat"
name="password_repeat"
class="input-block-level"
value=""
additionalAttributes="{femanager:Validation.FormValidationData(settings:settings,fieldName:'password_repeat')}" />
I try this:
additionalAttributes="{femanager:Validation.FormValidationData(settings:settings,fieldName:'password'),placeholder: '{password_repeat}'}" />
With several Verions of Escaping the femanager:Validation..... Got this Error:
The argument "additionalAttributes" was registered with type "array",
but is of type "string" in view helper
"TYPO3\CMS\Fluid\ViewHelpers\Form\PasswordViewHelper“
Any Ideas?
I think
Validation.FormValidationData()
is a viewhelper that returns a whole array which is expected for the attribute "additionalAttributes".
Because of that it's difficult to extend the array at this place.
But as far as I know the femanager-viewhelper itself offers the possibility to extend the final array, all to do is to give your array as a further argument which is called 'additionalAttributes' as well.
A short example:
<f:form.password
property="password"
additionalAttributes="{
femanager:Validation.FormValidationData(settings:settings,
fieldName:'password',
additionalAttributes:'{required:\'required\',pattern:\'.{8,}\'}')}"
}" />
Notice the array of 2 values (required and pattern).
I also recommend to have a look at the viewhelper on github:
https://github.com/TYPO3-extensions/femanager/blob/master/Classes/ViewHelpers/Validation/FormValidationDataViewHelper.php
Usually when renaming a flux field, the old values are not transfered and have to be entered again. Is there a way to keep the values after renaming a flux field?
Let's look at this simple flux configuration for example:
<f:section name="Configuration">
<flux:form id="article" icon="{f:uri.resource(path: 'Icons/Content/Example.svg')}" options="{group: 'FCE'}">
<flux:field.text name="text" rows="1"/>
</flux:form>
</f:section>
If I now rename the field text to title all previously entered values for text are lost:
<f:section name="Configuration">
<flux:form id="article" icon="{f:uri.resource(path: 'Icons/Content/Example.svg')}" options="{group: 'FCE'}">
<flux:field.text name="title" rows="1"/>
</flux:form>
</f:section>
Is it possible to somehow let flux know, that the field title is supposed to have the values of the former field text?
Short answer: no.
If I now rename the field text to title all previously entered values for text are lost
Long answer: in fact, they are still present in stored XML from FlexForm, but with old name. There are two reasons for this:
This is not technically possible to determine, that the field was
renamed. Because the end result is same, as field was deleted and a new was created.
Imagine a situation, that you have two page templates, where first one contains field of name text and second - title. You set first template as page template and fill text with something. Then you change template to second one - should now title contain previously filled value? Then you switch back to the first template - should the text be restored (in fact it is restored, because Flux doesn't delete it)? And now combine it with inheritance of templates and see, which mess can happen.
I've successfully created a new Data List type in Alfresco, but was struggling to figure out what the tag is called to achieve a description under a field. I consulted the Data Dictionary, but was unable to find it.
It may not exist, but the this screenshot makes me hopeful. As you can see, the Modified Date field has the DD/MM/YYYY help text under it. This is exactly what I want to put under the Program Name field, but with my own string.
<property name="orpdl:programName">
<title>Program Name</title>
<type>d:text</type>
<helptext>What's this tag called?</helptext>
<mandatory>true</mandatory>
</property>
Eeuh that's just a div in the control field for all the date fields.
Take a look at alfresco/site-webscripts/org/alfresco/components/form/controls/date.ftl
The message you see is in this div:
<div class="format-info">
<span class="date-format">${msg("form.control.date-picker.display.date.format")}</span>
<#if showTime><span class="time-format<#if disabled>-disabled</#if>">${msg("form.control.date-picker.display.time.format")}</span></#if>
</div>
So you want a string, just create your own custom controller based on textfield.ftl and put whatever string you like. Probably best to do that by passing it through the control-params.
I'm trying to pass a form field of type "file" to a CFFUNCTION. The argument type is "any". Here is the syntax I am trying to use (pseudocode):
<cfloop from="1" to="5" index="i">
<cfset fieldname = "attachment" & i />
<cfinvoke component="myComponent" method="attachFile">
<cfinvokeargument name="attachment" value="#FORM[fieldname]#" />
</cfinvoke>
</cfloop>
The loop is being done because there are five form fields named "attachment1", "attachment2", et al.
This throws an exception in the function:
coldfusion.tagext.io.FileTag$FormFileNotFoundException: The form field C:\ColdFusion8\...\neotmp25080.tmp did not contain a file.
However, this syntax DOES work:
<cfloop from="1" to="5" index="i">
<cfinvoke component="myComponent" method="attachFile">
<cfinvokeargument name="attachment" value="FORM.attachment#i#" />
</cfinvoke>
</cfloop>
I don't like writing code like that in the second example. It just seems like bad practice to me.
So, can anyone tell me how to use structure syntax to properly pass a file type form field to a CFFUNCTION??
In your first codesnippet the value #FORM[fieldname]# evaluates to the name of the file uploaded. So you are sending the filename to your function instead of the name of the field containing the filename.
If you want to stick with the structure notation you might use
<cfinvokeargument name="attachment" value="FORM['#fieldname#']" />
or
<cfinvokeargument name="attachment" value="FORM.#fieldname#" />
instead. I also don't think that there is anything wrong with your (working) second code example.
Edit:
It seems as if <cffile> can not evaluate the filefield if you pass the field using the struct notation, due to some auto evaluation magic of the parameter. After some further investigations I found out that passing only the name of the formfield without the form prefix would also work.
<cfinvokeargument name="attachment" value="#fieldname#" />
The filefield parameter is documented as string, containing the name of the formfield without prefix. My last approach seems more "right" to me. It would even hide the implementation a little bit more. I'm also not so much about composing scope/struct var/keys outside of a component or function and then passing it into the function. This should better be done in the function itself.