Notice: Roadmap & Feature Requests (post feature requests here)

41 posts by 14 authors in: Forums > CMS Builder
Last Post: June 3, 2008   (RSS)

By chrisl - April 12, 2008

Hi Dave,

A spellchecker ... we need a spell checker [:(]
cj

Re: [Dave] Discussion: Roadmap & Feature Requests (post feature requests here)

By jsv - April 15, 2008

I suggest to add a third role: "super user" which gives acces to all records but no access to the "admin only" fields...

See the discussion:

http://www.interactivetools.com/iforum/Products_C2/CMS_Builder_F35/User_Accounts_P61396/

Re: [Dave] Discussion: Roadmap & Feature Requests (post feature requests here)

By InHouse - April 16, 2008

Oddball suggestion but... I'd like an exclude function in the List View to keep one or more records available online, but not visible in a ListView.

Situation: Due to project requirements, we want a List View but would like to exclude particular records which will be used as intros to the list.

Suggest exclusion based on a comma separated list of record numbers. In a perfect world, it would also be nice to exclude on a field condition.

Re: [InHouse] Discussion: Roadmap & Feature Requests (post feature requests here)

By Dave - April 16, 2008

When you say list view do you mean the Editor List (in the admin program) or the List Viewer (on the website)?
Dave Edis - Senior Developer
interactivetools.com

Re: [Dave] Discussion: Roadmap & Feature Requests (post feature requests here)

By InHouse - April 16, 2008

Sorry for not being clear Dave. I was imagining an exclude list for the on-page public List Viewer, rather than the back-end.

The one thing that I've done in the back-end to make my life easier is to add a link to the Section Editor List which appears next to the 'Admin' link in the menu, to the right of the drop-down list. Saves several clicks when I'm working in that area.

J.

Re: [InHouse] Discussion: Roadmap & Feature Requests (post feature requests here)

By Dave - April 16, 2008

To exclude specific records from the list viewer on the website, would it be possible to use the build in special field "hidden" (link) and check that checkbox for the records you don't want displayed in the list?
Dave Edis - Senior Developer
interactivetools.com

Re: [Dave] Discussion: Roadmap & Feature Requests (post feature requests here)

By InHouse - April 16, 2008

If I understand that Hidden field function, it completely hides the article.

What I need is to still be able to show that article if, for example it's the lead article, but I don't want it to show up in the archive.

Example: Page loads... main text shows a welcome message (stored in TableA). Right column shows a List View of all TableA articles, but the welcome message is not needed here. It's exempted from the List View, but shown on the Page View. This lets us put all the content for that topic in one editor.

I could sniff for a specific record number and skip it in the foreach List View loop, but a flag in the back-end would be easier.

J.

Re: [InHouse] Discussion: Roadmap & Feature Requests (post feature requests here)

By Dave - April 17, 2008

Hmmm... Ok, what about creating a checkbox field "welcomeOnly" and checking for that in the foreach loop and skipping it? Then you could have the best of both worlds. Would that work?
Dave Edis - Senior Developer
interactivetools.com

Re: [Dave] Discussion: Roadmap & Feature Requests (post feature requests here)

By InHouse - April 17, 2008

I think that's a good way to go, although cosmetically I would suggest another name than 'welcomeOnly'. I can envision users wanting to have several records in the table that would not be seen on the List View while still being available upon direct URL access from a hard coded link or a Page View's recordNum value.

Imagine a Welcome message to be sure, but also a disclaimer message, sales message, or a how to use this info message all as separate records in the Section Editor. Being able to flag these records as hidden from list view lets us put all our related bits into one Editor and make fewer Select statments on the page. At least, I really believe this is how many of my clients would want to think about it.

Mind you, I suppose if there were built-in group inheritance then this need could be accomplished another way. <just musing...>

J.