fix for issue 1230.#1249
Open
wuxiaojun514 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Previously it will exclude the field ref in the list instance of site template if this field is set as hidden in content type. Then this field (field ref to site column) cannot be provisioned correctly if site level content type doesn't have this field
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hotfix for issue #1230
Problem
Currently I find an issue in list provisioning:
If the list has custom content type which contains hidden site column , the exported template won't have this field ref . See detail in #1230
It will become a problem if its site level content type doesn't have this field (only list level content type has this field ), then this field won't be provisioned.
My hotfix
I checked the related code and found that this module is quite old and stable (It doesn't have too much change compared with its initial version)
It seems that the first author want to exclude the system fields (system fields won't be added into content type) in the list provisioning.
Now
contentTypeFieldswill add all the field link in the list content types no matter whether it is hidden or not, to avoid this issue.