“The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do.”
— James Barton
Well, the test results are starting to trickle in, and one of the issues looks rather important, so we need to take a look at that before we jump into our next major effort. The problem with the scoped System Properties came up earlier, and I thought that I had found a way to deal with the issue, but obviously there is still a problem where the initial set-up is concerned. Basically, if you are not in the Collaboration Store scope, then the set-up fails because the updates to the scoped System Properties are not allowed. My idea of moving the update logic to a global component did not resolve this issue, as the problem is related to the active scope of the user rather than the scope of the component.
So, it seems that the answer to the problem is to ensure that the user is in the correct scope before allowing them proceed with the set-up. Fortunately, there is already an area in ServiceNow where that very check is made, and there is even an option in the error message to switch over to the correct scope. You can see that when you bring up a scoped app and you are not in the scope of that application.
So it would seem that we could snag the HTML for that message and throw it up in the top of the HTML for the initial set-up widget with some kind of ng-hide so that it only appears if you are in the wrong scope. The first thing that we would need to do, then, is to figure out how to detect the user’s scope and then set up some boolean variable in the widget to indicate whether or not the user is in the correct scope to proceed with the set-up. Looking at the GlideSession API, it seems like the getCurrentApplicationId() method is just what we need. So I added this line to the top of the server script of the widget:
data.validScope = (gs.getCurrentApplicationId() == '5b9c19242f6030104425fcecf699b6ec');
Then, to prevent the user from submitting the form when in the wrong scope, I modified the ng-disabled tag on all of the submit buttons from this:
ng-disabled="!(form1.$valid)"
… to this:
ng-disabled="!(form1.$valid) || !c.data.validScope"
Now all I needed to do was to grab a copy of the HTML source from the application form and paste it in at the top of the HTML for the widget and see if the link would still work. Unfortunately, the link in the existing code relies on the GlideURL object, which is not available in Service Portal widgets, so we are going to have to hack that up a little bit to get around that problem. Here is the existing onclick script:
window.location.href=new GlideURL('change_current_app.do').addParam('app_id', '5b9c19242f6030104425fcecf699b6ec').addParam('referrer', window.location.pathname + window.location.search + window.location.hash).getURL();
Basically, this code just builds a URL, so it seems as if we could just go ahead and build the URL manually and hard-code the link. After doing a little tinkering around to see just what the URL actually was, I came up with this value for our circumstances:
change_current_app.do?app_id=5b9c19242f6030104425fcecf699b6ec&referrer=%24sp.do%3Fid%3Dcollaboration_store_setup
So, my final HTML, including the ng-hide based on my new widget variable, turned out to be this:
<div id="nav_message" class="outputmsg_nav" ng-hide="c.data.validScope">
<img role="presentation" src="images/icon_nav_info.png">
<span class="outputmsg_nav_inner">
The <strong>Collaboration Store Set-up</strong> cannot be completed because <strong>Collaboration Store</strong> is not selected in your application picker.
<a onclick="window.location.href='change_current_app.do?app_id=5b9c19242f6030104425fcecf699b6ec&referrer=%24sp.do%3Fid%3Dcollaboration_store_setup'">
Switch to <strong>Collaboration Store</strong>
</a>.
</span>
</div>
Now all I needed to do was to bring up the set-up widget while in the wrong scope and see how it looked and how the new link worked out once I gave it a try.
With the hard-coded link in the onclick function, everything seems to work as intended. The user is placed in the correct scope, the form is reloaded, and the error message goes away. This should finally resolve this annoying issue once and for all (let’s hope!).
The other issue that was reported was that the provider field on the application record was not populated when publishing a new version of an application. It was not clear from the comment whether the missing data was on the Client instance, the Host instance, or both, but I was unable to recreate any of those conditions in any of my testing. I am going to need a little more detail on this one before I can address it, so if anyone encounters this error in any of their testing, please leave a detailed message in the comments so that we can get it resolved.
There is still the potential for more feedback to come, but this particular issue seems to be rather critical, so it’s time to release a new Update Set. While I am at it, I think I will take a different approach on the global components and make an actual Update Set for that as well instead of just exporting the XML for the one global Script Include. This way, I can also include the app’s logo image, which is always missing from the XML generated for a scoped application. Here are the two new Update Sets:
As always, all feedback is welcome, and not just to report issues. If you give this a try and everything actually works, I would love to hear about that as well. Next time out, we will either deal with any more issues to come to light, or we will jump into the next big challenge, which will be to install an app published to the store.
Special Note to Testers
Set-up Process – If you want to test the set-up process, you will need to set up the Host instance first. You cannot set up a Client instance until there is a valid Host instance, as the Client instance set-up process requires access to a valid Host instance. What to look for: check to make sure that all instances in the community have the same list of instances; select Collaboration Store -> Member Organizations to pull up the list of instances in each instance to verify that all instances have the exact same list of all instances in the community.
Application Publishing Process – If you want to test the application publishing process, you will need to go through the set-up process first, and then you can publish an application to the store. This can be done with a single Host instance, but to fully test all of the functionality, you will need at least two Client instances in addition to the Host. What to look for: once you publish the application, check to make sure that all instances in the community have the newly published version of the application, including the XML Update Set attachment; select Collaboration Store -> Member Organizations to pull up the list of instances, then check the Related List of applications under the appropriate instance for the application, and then click on the app to check the Related List of versions under the application.
Application Installation Process – If you want to test the application installation process, you have jumped ahead of the class, as that portion of the app has not yet been developed. However, even though the development of the official installation process has not even been started, if you really want to install an app that has been shared with your instance, you can always download the XML attachment on the version record, import it back into your instance, and go through the normal XML Update Set installation process that you would go through for any other imported Update Set. But again, that’s getting a little ahead of where things stand right at the moment with project’s development.
One More Thing
As mentioned earlier, there is currently no error recovery built into the system at this time. This is definitely something near the top of the we-really-need-to-do-this list, but it is not there right now. What that means is that if you are doing any kind of testing and one or more of the instances in your community is off-line or unavailable for some reason, things will fail and those instances will not get the needed updates. One day we will definitely need to fix that, but for now, if that happens, that’s not a bug in the software to be reported; it’s to be expected until we build in some kind of error recovery into the product.
Also, if you end up testing things and don’t have any issues to report, then by all means, report that, too! You don’t have to have encounter a problem to post your results. If everything worked out as expected, we would definitely love to hear that as well. As always, all feedback of any kind is very much appreciated.
