[MGNLCT-143] jcrName field added in m6 content-type app Created: 07/May/20 Updated: 27/Oct/20 Resolved: 19/Oct/20 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Content Types |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Major |
| Reporter: | Christopher Zimmermann | Assignee: | Sang Ngo Huu |
| Resolution: | Obsolete | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | 62-misc | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | 7.05d | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Template: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Acceptance criteria: |
Empty
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Task DoD: |
[ ]*
Doc/release notes changes? Comment present?
[ ]*
Downstream builds green?
[ ]*
Solution information and context easily available?
[ ]*
Tests
[ ]*
FixVersion filled and not yet released
[ ] 
Architecture Decision Record (ADR)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bug DoR: |
[ ]*
Steps to reproduce, expected, and actual results filled
[ ]*
Affected version filled
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date of First Response: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | nodeName | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sprint: | UI FW 10, UI FW 11, UI FW 12, UI FW 13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Story Points: | 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
With the same app and content-type definition It seems that the m6 app has an extra field 'jcrName', or that the field is not merged with a name field as it is in m5. See these screenshots to see the differences. I would expect the M6 app to have the same result as the M5 style app, I dont want the jcrName field.
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Simon Lutz [ 18/May/20 ] |
|
| Comment by Christopher Zimmermann [ 18/May/20 ] |
|
We had some discussion about at least 2 possible paths to take. 1) Inform customers that they need to migrate to the new handling of name/jcrName. or 2) provide backwards compatibility for customers so that they do not have to migrate anything. Here some notes from PM/customer perspective if migration was required:
And some more general feelings about any Migration efforts.....
|
| Comment by Christian Ringele [ 01/Jul/20 ] |
|
The problem is out if my view not the auto created 'jcrName' field, but that the auto created dynamic app uses the field 'name' to display the nodes name. What should be either: Have a look into
Update, this is wrong: One can not get rid or overload the auto created view column using 'name' I was now able to overload it with this code: subApps: browser: workbench: contentViews: tree: columns: name: name: jcrName I fell into the trap of this bug: |
| Comment by Christian Ringele [ 14/Jul/20 ] |
|
Using now a contentType based app with a model, I'm pretty sure it should display and use jcrName, as all others also do OTB. |
| Comment by Christopher Zimmermann [ 07/Sep/20 ] |
|
slutz Could you provide more information on the proposed approach? Is it that in a contenttyupe file, or app file, I could add a line that would cause it to use 'name' instead of 'jcrName'? |
| Comment by Šimon Demočko [ 19/Oct/20 ] |
|
Superseded by |