Trouble creating base asset in 6.7
We just upgrade to 6.7 today on our test server. I am attempting to setup a demo site for a cascade training class we are doing a couple weeks. In the past I have been able to create a base asset by creating a new Page and just setting the system name and selecting a Content Type. I could do this and not be prompted to fill in required fields that may be associated to the Content Type. This was ideal as it didn't require that I fill in bogus details that end users could simply leave in place. I have confirmed this is still the case on our sandbox which is still sitting at 6.4.2. In 6.7 it seems to force me to fill in the required fields when I initially create the base asset. Am I missing something or has this behavior changed in 6.7?
thanks
-matt
Discussions are closed to public comments.
If you need help with Cascade CMS please
start a new discussion.
Keyboard shortcuts
Generic
| ? | Show this help |
|---|---|
| ESC | Blurs the current field |
Comment Form
| r | Focus the comment reply box |
|---|---|
| ^ + ↩ | Submit the comment |
You can use Command ⌘ instead of Control ^ on Mac
Support Staff 1 Posted by Tim on 12 Jul, 2010 07:45 PM
Hi Matt,
The difference in 6.7 is that when you change a Content Type for a particular page asset, the edit form is updated dynamically (rather than having to click Submit before seeing the changes).
If you are creating new assets from scratch (using Metadata Sets and/or Data Definitions that aren't currently in use), I think you could potentially leave all fields to be 'not required' until all of your base assets have been configured. At that point, you could go back and change the fields to be required (since the page has already been saved before the field was required).
Otherwise, I would recommend filling in the fields for the base asset with something generic but meaningful to the end user. For example, you could fill in the Title field with 'Enter Title Here'.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Thanks
2 Posted by mdcarter on 12 Jul, 2010 07:54 PM
The Data Definition I was using is already in use and going back and marking things as not required would not be ideal. I can see several situations where we will use existing metadata sets or data definitions to create new base assets and that would become cumbersome.
Filling in the required fields with generic text defeats the purpose of required fields. The idea of required fields is to force the end users to put something in them before they can save. If they contain generic text the users can very easily ignore them and let the generic text stay in the field.
While I see the dynamically updated form to be a nice feature I personally think it could be more problematic than beneficial as it relates to this issue.
-Matt
Support Staff 3 Posted by Tim on 21 Jul, 2010 04:17 PM
Hi Matt,
Sorry for the delay. I can see where you are coming from with regard to the required fields. I have run into that same situation in the past. I've created a new item in our Idea Exchange which addresses this issue. Be sure to comment/vote on it!
Thanks
Tim closed this discussion on 21 Jul, 2010 04:17 PM.