This repository has been archived by the owner. It is now read-only.

Updated text regarding language and NoScript #136

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@wobba

wobba commented May 31, 2017

  • Updated text to reflect NoScript is possible for modern team sites.
  • Added note about timeouts and MUI settings, and how to work around it.
Updated text regarding language and NoScript
* Updated text to reflect NoScript is possible for modern team sites.
* Added note about timeouts and MUI settings, and how to work around it.
@msftclas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@msftclas

msftclas May 31, 2017

@wobba,
Thanks for having already signed the Contribution License Agreement. Your agreement was validated by Microsoft. We will now review your pull request.
Thanks,
Microsoft Pull Request Bot

msftclas commented May 31, 2017

@wobba,
Thanks for having already signed the Contribution License Agreement. Your agreement was validated by Microsoft. We will now review your pull request.
Thanks,
Microsoft Pull Request Bot

@saldana

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@saldana

saldana May 31, 2017

Contributor

Validation status: passed

File Status Preview URL Details
articles/modern-experience-customizations-customize-sites.md Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

Note: If you changed an existing file name or deleted a file, broken links in other files to the deleted or renamed file are listed only in the full build report.

Contributor

saldana commented May 31, 2017

Validation status: passed

File Status Preview URL Details
articles/modern-experience-customizations-customize-sites.md Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

Note: If you changed an existing file name or deleted a file, broken links in other files to the deleted or renamed file are listed only in the full build report.

@VesaJuvonen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@VesaJuvonen

VesaJuvonen Jun 2, 2017

Contributor

Thing is that it should not be possible, so will not merge this for now. The fact that noscript can be disabled on modern sites is apparently a bug. Will though still double check the situation internally and will come back on this later.

Contributor

VesaJuvonen commented Jun 2, 2017

Thing is that it should not be possible, so will not merge this for now. The fact that noscript can be disabled on modern sites is apparently a bug. Will though still double check the situation internally and will come back on this later.

@wobba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wobba

wobba Jun 2, 2017

Hmmm....if this is a bug then API's need to change, as enabling script is the only way to add more entries ti HTMLField security for example again. As well as uploading pre-configures aspx files. If this is blocked I'll have my ass handed to me with multiple customers for sure.

So, clear guidance if a bug or feature is imperative indeed.

wobba commented Jun 2, 2017

Hmmm....if this is a bug then API's need to change, as enabling script is the only way to add more entries ti HTMLField security for example again. As well as uploading pre-configures aspx files. If this is blocked I'll have my ass handed to me with multiple customers for sure.

So, clear guidance if a bug or feature is imperative indeed.

@VesaJuvonen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@VesaJuvonen

VesaJuvonen Jun 2, 2017

Contributor

Absolutely get that... Will try to get this solved through out, before we make any final conclusions.

Contributor

VesaJuvonen commented Jun 2, 2017

Absolutely get that... Will try to get this solved through out, before we make any final conclusions.

@wobba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wobba

wobba Jun 2, 2017

The most important part in the PR is actually the note on languages and applying composed looks, based on a support ticket I had.

Some food for thought on the script issue. What about enrolling/upgrading existing sites to a Group? I'd be fine if this was the recommended way.

Also, applying composed look works with CSOM directly on NoScript, while prov templates won't work.

And I'm all for having NoScript on, and we have it off for all Group sites as well. We just happen to turn it on during provisioning to set up the site with composed look and content, then turn it back off. And we've discussed this before so you know the gaps. It's not about hacking things script wise, but using regular SP func also in modern sites. :) So appreciate you following up on this.

wobba commented Jun 2, 2017

The most important part in the PR is actually the note on languages and applying composed looks, based on a support ticket I had.

Some food for thought on the script issue. What about enrolling/upgrading existing sites to a Group? I'd be fine if this was the recommended way.

Also, applying composed look works with CSOM directly on NoScript, while prov templates won't work.

And I'm all for having NoScript on, and we have it off for all Group sites as well. We just happen to turn it on during provisioning to set up the site with composed look and content, then turn it back off. And we've discussed this before so you know the gaps. It's not about hacking things script wise, but using regular SP func also in modern sites. :) So appreciate you following up on this.

@wobba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wobba

wobba Jun 13, 2017

Interesting point: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/pnp_articles/modern-experience-customizations-customize-lists-and-libraries has a reference to disabling scripting on modern sites :)

You however can disable NoScript in "modern" sites to achieve the same behavior for "modern" list and libraries across "classic" and "modern" sites.

wobba commented Jun 13, 2017

Interesting point: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/pnp_articles/modern-experience-customizations-customize-lists-and-libraries has a reference to disabling scripting on modern sites :)

You however can disable NoScript in "modern" sites to achieve the same behavior for "modern" list and libraries across "classic" and "modern" sites.

@phillipharding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@phillipharding

phillipharding Jun 13, 2017

Tried to disable NoScript on a Modern site this PM, which was unsuccessful
But I was able to disable NoScript on a Group site

Is this expected behaviour?

phillipharding commented Jun 13, 2017

Tried to disable NoScript on a Modern site this PM, which was unsuccessful
But I was able to disable NoScript on a Group site

Is this expected behaviour?

@wobba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wobba

wobba Jun 13, 2017

@phillipharding A modern site is per def today a Group site - that's how it's talked about. A team site (listed on sites pages in SPO admin) has by default scripting turned on. You can however make a team site noscript if you want. So a team site can still have all the moderness, and thus be a Modern Site ;) Which is why I like to talk about the site templates, GROUP#0 vs STS#0, as it's all technical.

wobba commented Jun 13, 2017

@phillipharding A modern site is per def today a Group site - that's how it's talked about. A team site (listed on sites pages in SPO admin) has by default scripting turned on. You can however make a team site noscript if you want. So a team site can still have all the moderness, and thus be a Modern Site ;) Which is why I like to talk about the site templates, GROUP#0 vs STS#0, as it's all technical.

@wobba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wobba

wobba Jun 20, 2017

@VesaJuvonen, wanted to add a bit more on the issue regarding Modern sites. Seems when we provision Groups via app-only, Sharing from the SP UI is disabled on the site collection. We then use Set-PnPTenantSite (Tenant.SetSiteProperties) to enable direct sharing from the site. If we then run any Set-PnPTenantSite without specifying the -Sharing value explicit, meaning it shouldn't be changed, it's reset to Disabled.

So setting tenant properties on Group sites seems a bit unstable - so proper guidance on what is supported and allowed is becoming more and more important. And I guess Sharing from the site itself should be supported - if I want to share a file outside of the Groups members.

Also, if I crate a Group via the UI, then sharing is set on the site collection, and not disabled as it is when creating via app-only. :) Fun stuffs!

wobba commented Jun 20, 2017

@VesaJuvonen, wanted to add a bit more on the issue regarding Modern sites. Seems when we provision Groups via app-only, Sharing from the SP UI is disabled on the site collection. We then use Set-PnPTenantSite (Tenant.SetSiteProperties) to enable direct sharing from the site. If we then run any Set-PnPTenantSite without specifying the -Sharing value explicit, meaning it shouldn't be changed, it's reset to Disabled.

So setting tenant properties on Group sites seems a bit unstable - so proper guidance on what is supported and allowed is becoming more and more important. And I guess Sharing from the site itself should be supported - if I want to share a file outside of the Groups members.

Also, if I crate a Group via the UI, then sharing is set on the site collection, and not disabled as it is when creating via app-only. :) Fun stuffs!

@VesaJuvonen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@VesaJuvonen

VesaJuvonen Jun 26, 2017

Contributor

Hi Mikael,
I've manually now merged key parts of this to the article. After internal review, we have decided that we do support disabling 'noscript' setting also from the modern site. This should now be reflected with the customization article.

Contributor

VesaJuvonen commented Jun 26, 2017

Hi Mikael,
I've manually now merged key parts of this to the article. After internal review, we have decided that we do support disabling 'noscript' setting also from the modern site. This should now be reflected with the customization article.

@wobba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wobba

wobba Jun 26, 2017

Great, and we good to have guidance on this :)

wobba commented Jun 26, 2017

Great, and we good to have guidance on this :)

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.