Data Definition "Restrict to groups" items and Smart Fields

tdb's Avatar

tdb

06 Aug, 2015 07:29 PM

What I'd like to do is set up a modular structure within Cascade that would allow our developers to build each "row" of a page in a modular way. I think this can be easily accomplished by using Smart Fields to show or hide big chunks of Data Definitions from the content editors.

So for example, with each row the dev could choose one of several types of rows (2 column, hero graphic, 3 column, photo gallery, news links, etc. etc.) which would allow them to basically set up a custom structure of a page very quickly. They'd add the rows and would select the type of row each one is by using a Smart Field, and that would then show only the input field options for that type of row.

I've been able to do all of this and get it working, but there's one thing I'm having an issue with. While I'd like our devs to be able to change types of rows, I don't want our content editors to be able to change the row types (or order of rows.)

I thought maybe the "Restrict to groups" option for the Smart Field would work when I was conceptualizing the system, however I ran into a snag. If a user group doesn't have access to a Smart Field, that group also can't see any of the fields that the Smart Field is supposed to reveal. So even if a dev with access to a Smart Field pre-populates all the rows in a page, content editors without access to that Smart Field won't be able to see any of the fields revealed by that Smart Field.

Are there any workarounds I'm not thinking of?

  1. 1 Posted by Ryan Griffith on 06 Aug, 2015 08:01 PM

    Ryan Griffith's Avatar

    Hi,

    We recently resolved an issue relating to smart fields and restricted fields in Cascade 7.14 that I think should handle the behavior you are encountering. When you have a moment, can you confirm what version of Cascade you are currently running?

    Thanks!

  2. 2 Posted by tdb on 06 Aug, 2015 08:07 PM

    tdb's Avatar

    Hey Ryan, we're on Cascade Server v7.12.4. That would be great if it fixes that behavior. I know we're supposed to be upgrading soon.

    So what behavior can I expect from the system then in 7.14. My assumption would be:

    1) Devs set up rows and row types using Smart Fields, Save the page.
    2) Content editors would open the page, not be able to see the Smart Field, but would be able to see the fields revealed by the Smart Field choices the devs previously made.

    Another quick question, in the restrict-to-groups field, is it looking for a fully spelled out group name?

  3. 3 Posted by Ryan Griffith on 06 Aug, 2015 08:20 PM

    Ryan Griffith's Avatar

    Hi,

    Thank you for confirming; upgrading to at least 7.14 should definitely fix this behavior.

    So what behavior can I expect from the system then in 7.14. My assumption would be:

    You are correct in both points. The problem pre-7.14 is the smart field's rules were not being applied when they are hidden due to a restriction. As of 7.14, this is no longer the case.

    Another quick question, in the restrict-to-groups field, is it looking for a fully spelled out group name?

    Correct, it does need to be the exact name of the Group in order for the restriction to work.

    Please let me know if you have any questions.

    Thanks!

  4. 4 Posted by tdb on 07 Aug, 2015 12:45 PM

    tdb's Avatar

    Great to know, very helpful. A couple other questions that came up:

    I assume this same concept would apply with base-assets with pre-populated Smart Fields that Asset Factories were created with?

    Also, I assume that there isn't any way to prevent content editors from changing the order of "multiple" items (rows in this case)?

  5. 5 Posted by Ryan Griffith on 07 Aug, 2015 01:07 PM

    Ryan Griffith's Avatar

    Hi,

    I assume this same concept would apply with base-assets with pre-populated Smart Fields that Asset Factories were created with?

    Correct, creating new assets that are "pre-filled" using an Asset Factory that has a base asset assigned should behave the same way as editing an existing asset.

    Also, I assume that there isn't any way to prevent content editors from changing the order of "multiple" items (rows in this case)?

    Unfortunately, no, there is currently no way to restrict the multiple field controls. The only thing you can sort of restrict are the plus (add) and minus (remove) by configuring the field with the same minimum and maximum number value.

    That being said, I highly recommend posting a suggestion on our Idea Exchange if you would like to have such a feature considered for a future release.

    Please let me know if you have any questions.

    Thanks!

  6. 6 Posted by tdb on 07 Aug, 2015 06:03 PM

    tdb's Avatar

    Great, thanks again. I had some other non-related questions for you, but I'll open a new thread.

  7. 7 Posted by Ryan Griffith on 07 Aug, 2015 06:21 PM

    Ryan Griffith's Avatar

    Not a problem at all, I am glad to hear I was able to help answer your questions.

    I had some other non-related questions for you, but I'll open a new thread.

    Sounds good, I'll keep a look out!

    I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion, please feel free to comment or reply to re-open if you have any additional questions.

    Have a great day!

  8. Ryan Griffith closed this discussion on 07 Aug, 2015 06:21 PM.

Comments are currently closed for this discussion. You can start a new one.

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