[AdamP]

Thanks for your quick reply Alexander.

The config loading doesn’t continue any further, but I think I’ve worked out what’s happening…

I’m on SP2010 so the document mode is set to IE8. If I use developer tools to change that to IE9 or above the installer page loads correctly with the custom version field populated. Firefox also okay as it ignores the IE document mode…

With IE8 mode active there is an error in the console when I select the list to install/reinstall;

SCRIPT5007: Unable to get property ‘match’ of undefined or null reference
File: DFFS_Installer.aspx, Line: 1247, Column: 75

That line is;

var rw = jQuery(data).find(“Content”).html(), ra = rw.match(/\/\*dffs_loader_custom_code\*\/(.*?)\/\*dffs_loader_custom_code\*\//), rf = rw.match(/dffs_custom_version_folder=\”([^’]*?)\”/);

Unable to get property ‘match’ of undefined or null reference

Now I know how to work around it it’s not a huge issue, but might catch some people out.

Adam

[AdamP]

Thanks Alexander

The code above – is that different to the built in functionality in the Misc tab of DFFS?

Enter setup button
Disable the “Enter setup” link on the “Enhanced with DFFS” text below the form for all but these user IDs or SharePoint group names / IDs. Use with caution – I recommend setting a password instead.

There is also the option to allow access to the backend config via a dedicated page – That could be set up in a separate site pages library to limit access to authorised users (in conjunction with removal of the setup link on the form)

While I wouldn’t normally support any form of item level permissions, in this case it might be quite effective if used on dffs_backend_min.js

Adam

[AdamP]

I’d actually prefer to see more support for permissions based access and avoid passwords altogether. That gets away from the issues surrounding forgetting/sharing of passwords.
I usually rely on permissions on the SPJS-DynamicFormsForSharePoint list – so users may be able to get in and view the config if they know to click bottom left on the form, but they can’t do any damage as they only have read access.
Would it be possible to apply restrictive permissions to dffs_backend_min.js so that only authorised users can access/view the backend config?

[AdamP]

So you have a separate list which has a mapping of users to approvers?
You want to load a form, and depending on who the user is, determine who the relevant approver should be?

[AdamP]

Thanks Alexander.
It’s pushed me to experiment with tabs for the first time, so it’s been a positive thing for me.
Do you want me to try the updated loader files??

Adam

[AdamP]

Doh…you’re right…that site’s on 3.528. I’ll have a look at updating it.
As usual, thanks for the quick response Alexander!

What is the best way of updating DFFS + plugins to a later version, but still with the options to revert back in case there are issues with the later version?

Adam

[AdamP]

Afraid I can’t see the details in the attachment image.
Can you outline how you need the workflow and form to work together, and what you need DFFS/workflow to do that isn’t currently working as you want it to?

[AdamP]

Hi Timothy

Can you explain what you mean by training registration, and perhaps the steps in the process?

I created a simple self booking system for seats in seminars with DFFS. There isn’t any approval process but you could add that if needed.
The subject, dates and available places are predefined by an admin, end users simply choose a ‘slot’ and book by adding their name to the list item (or someone else’s name). DFFS is used to limit which fields can be edited (and by which people), and also limits editing to either the person booked into the slot, the person who last modified the item or defined admins.
I’m not sure if that’s along the lines of what you need, but if you want more detail let me know.
Adam

[AdamP]

To keep things as simple as possible could you redo your coding, so that the format is always consistent…103 becomes 0103?
That would sort the ordering.

[AdamP]

Is this related to the minimal download strategy in SP2013 and up?

[AdamP]

If it’s there I’m afraid I can’t locate it. I’ve even tried running iexplore.exe direct from c:\program files (x86) too, but no success, it still runs as the 64 bit version. Definitely no 32 bit app. It’s a corporate build of Windows 10 Enterprise, so possible something has been changed or locked down.
I’m not sure what else I can try.

[AdamP]

I’ve done something similar to this but without using workflow – I use a DFFS rule ‘on save’ on the editform in combination with a couple of other rules to check and set the filename based on other fields/values.

As this is a document library, I think the ID will be generated after newform is submitted, so when you get to the editform to add metadata the ID for the document will exist, and so you should be able to use it in a rule and set the filename to whatever you want it to be (just be careful to avoid a circular loop adding the ID each time to a filename that already has the ID included).
In my editform I set the filename based on two other fields – Reference number and Title. Each time either of those fields is edited, the filename is updated and committed on save.
If that sounds like what you want to do let me know and I can share the rules I use.

[AdamP]

Just following up on this after a long delay…I couldn’t get IE to run in 32 bit mode…

[AdamP]

Is this the same as the issue discussed here

Christine – are you running IE11 32 bit or 64 bit???
I think the conclusion we came to last time was that 64 bit IE11 was the likely reason;
In the console run

browseris.win32

and

browseris.win64bit

You should get a true or false response for each…let’s see if it’s 64 bit

[AdamP]

I’ve only ever done this inside a rule…
In DFFS rules config there is a section for “Hidden headings or Elements”.
In there I’ve got .ms-toolbar
That’s the class I found by using developer tools to inspect DOM elements
(Note this is for a SP2010 site – possible other versions are different)

You could also use this same class in custom CSS to apply globally, but for us we only wanted to hide this for end users, admins still have visibility.

[Author]

Posts