[SHA-1575] Improve how the User Profile can be extended with metadata Created: 05-Feb-15 Updated: 13-Jun-16
|Affects Version/s:||5.1.f Community|
|Remaining Estimate:||Not Specified|
|Time Spent:||Not Specified|
|Original Estimate:||Not Specified|
Windows 8.1, Tomcat 7, Alfresco 5.0.c, MySQL
At the moment (Alfresco 5.0.c) the User Profile is till the same code since 4.0. It definitely needs an overhaul.
With the extension module you can bypass extending userprofile.get.html.ftl and just add a snippet somewhere.
The case is still that you need to fullfill these steps for only a simple addition of a metadata field.
The biggest issue of this approach is that the user profile isn't being rendered by the forms engine so it can't be defined/switched in a forms-config. So a hell lot of redundant copy and paste code.
|Comment by Kevin Roast [X] (Inactive) [ 10-Feb-15 ]|
I completely agree - this should be high on the list for 5.1 improvements.
|Comment by Tahir Malik [ 06-Nov-15 ]|
Is there any progress in this .
|Comment by Martin Bergljung [ 16-Nov-15 ]|
I think this one would be very nice to have, I have seen a lot of questions and proposed solutions during the years. None very easy to implement for a newcomer to Alfresco.
My suggestion is a 2 step solution:
1) Create a tutorial for 5.0 (verify for 5.1) that shows how to add, and hide, properties to the User Profile. Base this tutorial on Jeff Potts solution: http://ecmarchitect.com/archives/2012/02/27/1555
2) Re-implement the User Profile Management with Aikau and supply a User Profile Manager where properties can be added and hidden without the need to code or stop Alfresco. If possible link it up with LDAP sync too. Make sure properties are rendered properly with links etc, see: https://issues.alfresco.com/jira/browse/ALF-3107
|Comment by Richard Esplin [X] (Inactive) [ 26-May-16 ]|
We considered this proposal as part of our roadmap process for the next year, and unfortunately, it did not make the committed Product Roadmap.
I will move this to the Share backlog so that the engineering team can evaluate if it is an architectural improvement that they want to prioritize, but I think it is likely that this issue gets closed even though we acknowledge it would be good to do. There are just too many initiatives to complete them all. Patches would help the engineering architects to understand the level of effort involved in doing this as part of their architectural improvement budget.