Just stumbled upon this question today:
"Is there a way to know that MPP published to the project server is not created using a template available on the server?"
Basically this comes from the point that how to find out compliance of the project plans to the standard templates.
I am not aware how it can be done?
Actually there is no way to identify by one field that this project was created using that template.
You may assume that by Enterprise Project Type, but again there is a way to change EPT for existing project.
The only way I know is to compare a template and a project by tasks, by structure, etc. it works like finger print recognition: you select several points which the most probably tell that the project was created from the template.
The worst case I can imagine: a user creates a project by a template and after that removes everything from the project. Formally the project was created by the template but in real there is nothing from the template left in the project.
Related
Does anyone know how you version / source control changes in Reddot Cms (OpenText). Also is there any best practice advice for release management of changes from one Reddot environment to another Reddot instance. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.
There is best-practice, but as you have probably realised, there aren't too many practitioners of RedDot these days. In case you should come back to this thread (or for someone else's benefit) Versioning is built into the Template Manager, but has to be enabled. There's no Source Control integration last time I checked, but we developed a prototype system that allows for the creation of templates in Visual Studio. The project to complete that has since died due to lack of commercial support, but some of the ideas may be useful for you if you want it.
I split up the answer in two parts: Versioning and migration between stages.
Versioning can only be done with the template history or via an external service that grabs the templates on a regular basis or triggered manually. At least for the Management Server there is no built-in service for a "real" versioning or release of more than just single templates/content classes or even including pages.
There are 3 ways of moving changes from dev to test or prod I have seen often:
Two templates: Using two templates on one server, on called "Development" and the other one "Production". All new development is done on the "Development" template and moved to the other template as soon as finished. If elements are different between those templates they need to be duplicated. This is typically on small installations without staging areas. Nowadays, you will find only very few of those.
Partial tree export: Development is done on a dev server and the changes are exported as partial tree. There is a special area in the project tree where pages are created which templates shall be moved over. These are exported including the templates and imported on the target server to override the existing ones.
Tool support: There are external tools for moving templates and content classes to other servers. There is e.g. SitePort (http://siteport.net , can also move whole templates between RedDot servers afaik) and the Sync Tool (http://www.erminas.de/en/products#synctool , can compare and move single element attributes and/or single lines of templates, please note: this shall not be advertisement as the tool is made by us but I do not know any other like this). Some companies also have custom development tools for this.
I have a local Sitecore instance where I made changes involving both code and the creation of a new sublayout.
After deploying the code I can see on the new environment the usercontrol (.ascx) file associated to the sublayout, but the corresponding item does not appear and cannot be used.
If I attempt to recreate the usercontrol, it tells me that the file already exists, and due to my lack of experience with the platform I found myself unable to import it.
What would be the optimal way to proceed?
To deploy your new sublayout correctly you should create a Sitecore Package. This is basically a zip file that allows you to move both items and disk files between Sitecore instances in a controlled manner. For basic installs of Sitecore, where you have not added any specialised tools, it is generally the preferred way to move resources between servers.
The "Package Designer Guide" on the Sitecore Developer Network will give you information about how to use the Sitecore UI on your development site to create a package containing both the Item(s) and the file(s) for your sublayout:
http://sdn.sitecore.net/upload/sitecore6/65/package_designer_admin_guide-a4.pdf
Once created, this package can then be imported onto whatever other servers you want to deploy your sublayout to.
-- Edited to add --
Derek Hunziker's answer makes a good point: As well as the basic Sitecore behaviour there are third party tools available which can enhance and extend the deployment experience if you wish. As well as Hedgehog TDS, you might also consider:
The "Sitecore Rocks" extension for Visual Studio allows the creation of packages from within the
Visual Studio UI. This tool is free to use. (https://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/44a26c88-83a7-46f6-903c-5c59bcd3d35b/)
There are also a variety of open source tools - Sitecore Courier is one example: (https://github.com/adoprog/Sitecore-Courier) This is designed to help automate deployment between Sitecore instances.
Both TDS and Courier are most suited to regular deployments, such as those during ongoing development cycles, since they both include automation to help decide what gets deployed. The standard Sitecore UI and the Sitecore Rocks extensions for package creation are better suited to ad-hoc deployments, since you generally pick the things to deploy manually.
A common best practice is to deploy your items along with your code using Team Development for Sitecore. This eliminates the need to create Sitecore packages every time you want to move items between environments, which in turn reduces issues caused by human error. As an added bonus, the items that you own as a developer (such as Templates and SubLayouts) can be checked into source control.
Full disclosure: I work for Hedgehog Development :)
Our team has made a big app. This app has been a success with previous client.
Now other clients will be using this app, but with added requirements and/or different needs.
I would like to focus on making the current app into a generic Engine so that we can maintain this engine up-to-date across those different client-apps.
How should I:
Tackle this?
Bearing in mind that some viewControllers will need to reflect for new client
Changing all the graphics across the app
Any hint of how I can achieve? Been googling since long, could not arrive at a decent solution.
I already did something similar in the past, here is how we did:
part 1A: create a template project using demo assets (images has to have a default names ex:background_home.png).
part 1B: make sure that "special texts" are loaded from a plist (example:[HOME_TITLE:"your title"]) in this way you will be able to load customizable texts from a plist in the app bundle programmatically.
part 2: ask your designer to make a special design for the client respecting the name used by the developers in the code (ex:part 1A => background_home.png) or ask your designer to generate more or less 20 themes.
part 3: make a MACOS app or a script which will copy the original project and replace demo assets and plist by the correct one in the original project. You want the script to generate an xcode project as you will need to double check with your developer team that the project is properly setted-up, build and deployment is much easier when you have an xcode project. In other words, the script just take the folder of the original project your team made and replace some file inside. So you won't struggle with xcode project architecture, you just replace defaults assets. Also remember that storyboard files or pbxproj are xml so you can parse and edit them, but you might have some headache doing this, that's why I recommand you to just modify the assets in the project folder.
Then you can compile that project, configure it with the provisioning you want and deploy it to your clients. Thats what we did when we needed and it worked like a charm. Basically we made a MACOS app that the sale's force could use directly with the client. They just had to send to the developer team the generated xcode project in a zip and we were in charge of the compilation and deployment. We "developed" more than 600 products using that trick.
PROBLEMS:
- The code was fully visible in the xcode project and anybody could read and/or steal it.
- The projects were very similar to each others as they came from the same source code, only the texts and assets were differents.
WORKAROUND-SOLUTIONS:
- You can imagine implementing crypto when saving the archive of a project, in this way only authorized personal can unzip the archive containing the source code.
- You can create multiple projects and do the same process with different types of project. In this way you can change the type of a generated project according to client wishes ...
Hope this help!
I have a NetBeans javascript project with several included paths for plugins. I do not want to include the plugins in my core repository, so I have created separate, external folders for each and am including them via an include path. Because I test across many devices, I need my changes to upload on save and this works fine for the main code base, however, I would like to be able to edit a plugin via the include path and see those changes auto uploaded as well. Is this possible?
As of right now, the only alternative I see is to create separate projects for each plugin, which I am willing to do if this is the only option. The single project workflow is very preferable to me and I might be willing to switch IDE's if this is possible in another environment.
I would be happy to elaborate if my intentions are unclear.
I don't think it's possible. What about creating one single "umbrella" project for all plugins and simply manage it the same way you do the main project?
Personal note: What you have is basically several projects and the uploading is focused always on single project. So what you want is like "I want to treat them as projects but not to at the same time" :) Btw, how do you edit a plugin? I guess open it as a project in NetBeans or use some text editor. So again you basically treat it as a project.
We're looking into setting up a proper deployment process.
From what I've read there seems to be 4 methods of doing this.
Copy & Paste -- We don't want to do this
Using the "Package" mechanism built into the Salesforce Web Interface
Eclipse Force IDE "Deploy to Server" option
Ant Script (haven't tried this one yet)
Does anyone have advice on the limitation of the various methods .
Can you include everything in a Web Interface package?
We're looking to deploy the following items:
Apex Classes
Apex Triggers
WorkFlows
Email Templates
MailMerge Templates -- Can't seem to find these in Eclipse
Custom Fields
Page Layout
RecordTypes (can't seem to find these in Website or Eclipse)
PickList items?
SControls
I recommend the Force.com Migration Tool.
For reference:
Force.com Migration Tool Documentation
Migration Tool Guide
The Migration Tool allows you to use ant targets to move your metadata between salesforce.com organzations.
I can speak to this from recent painful experience.
Packaging: this is a very old method that predates the metadata API on which both Ant and Eclipse rely. In our experience, packaging's only benefit is in defining your project. If you're using Eclipse (which we do, and I recommend), you can define your project as being based on a particular package. As long as you remember to add new components to your package, your project hangs together
One thing that baffled us for a while, btw, are the many uses of package. We've noted the following:
Installed packages: these come in managed and unmanaged flavors and are really, in the words of a recent post on the SFDC boards, for ISVs to deploy their stuff into various unknown orgs "out there". Both managed and unmanaged packages have limitations that make them unsuitable and unneeded for deployment from development to production within an org, or in any case where you're doing custom development and don't intend to distribute code to a large anonymous base.
Non-installed packages: this is what you see when you click "Packages" in the web UI. These, that we sometimes call "development packages", seem to be just a convenient way to keep a project definition together.
Anyway, the conclusion I'm coming toward is that our team (custom development, not an ISV) does not need packages in any form.
The other forms of deployment, both Eclipse and Ant, rely on the Metadata API. In theory they are capable of exactly the same things. In reality they appear to be complementary. The Force.com migration tool, built into the Force.com IDE for Eclipse, makes deployment as easy as it can be (which is not very) and gives you a nice look at what it intends to deploy. On the other hand, we've seen Ant do some things the IDE could not. So it's probably worthwhile to learn both.
The process we're leaning toward is to keep all our projects in SVN, and use the SVN structure as the project definition (Eclipse will work with this and respect it). And we use Eclipse and sometimes Ant for migration. No apparent need for packages anywhere.
By the way, one more thing to be aware of -- not all components are migratable. Some things must be reconfigured by hand in the target environment. One example would be time-based workflows. Queues and Groups also need to behand-created, I think. Likewise the metadata API can't directly process field deletions so if you deleted a field in your source, you need to delete it by hand in the target. There are other cases as well.
Hope that's useful --
-- Steve Lane
As of Spring '09, mail merge templates are not supported in metadata but record types are. You will find record types as an XML element in the file for the object they belong to. Everything else on your list is supported with a small exception. Picklist values for standard fields cannot be edited in Spring '09. Stay tuned for news on Summer '09 feature announcements.
Update: Standard picklists on standard objects are now metadata exposed (as of API v16):
http://www.salesforce.com/us/developer/docs/api_meta/Content/meta_picklist.htm
Otherwise, Steve Lane's response is pretty accurate. The advantage of using unmanaged packages (what Steve calls non-installed packages) is that when you add metadata to a package, the metadata it depends on will automatically be added. So it's easier to grab a full set of metadata containing all its dependencies. If you are repeatedly moving metadata from one org (sandbox) to another (production), Steve's approach is probably the best way to go and certainly the most common today. I frequently use unmanaged "developer" packages to move something I've developed in one org to another unrelated org. For my purpose, I like to have the package defined in the org as opposed to an Eclipse project / SVN. But that probably doesn't make sense if you are doing team development across many dev/sandbox orgs and are using SVN already.
Jesper
Another option is to use Change Sets if you want to move meta data from a sandbox to production.
There are currently some limitations on how change sets can be used:
Sending a change set between two organizations requires a deployment
connection. Currently, change sets can only be sent between
organizations that are affiliated with a production organization, for
example, a production organization and a sandbox, or two sandboxes
created from the same organization.
From the docs:
A package must be managed for it to be published publicly on AppExchange, and for it to support upgrades. An organization can create a single managed package that can be downloaded and installed by many different organizations. They differ from unmanaged packages in that some components are locked, allowing the managed package to be upgraded later. Unmanaged packages do not include locked components and cannot be upgraded. In addition, managed packages obfuscate certain components (like Apex) on subscribing organizations, so as to protect the intellectual property of the developer.
Advantage to managed package would be that it allows you to easily version and distribute things across multiple SFDC organizations.