SharePoint
Feedback by UserVoice

Andrew Connell

My feedback

  1. 397 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Andrew Connell commented  · 

    Love it... love to see community feedback getting incorporated into the product!

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Andrew Connell commented  · 

    That's correct... no way for developers to add additional options at this time.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Andrew Connell commented  · 

    @MarkPowney - There's already an option for this ... they are called command sets and are part of the extensions added to SPFx in September 2017: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/dev/spfx/extensions/get-started/building-simple-cmdset-with-dialog-api

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Andrew Connell commented  · 

    Hey Pat - posted followup to the GH issue as well as a screenshot there... pointing to that as GH does better job of embedded images.

    Andrew Connell shared this idea  · 
  2. 5 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SharePoint Dev Platform » SharePoint Framework  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andrew Connell supported this idea  · 
  3. 102 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  SharePoint Dev Platform » SharePoint Framework  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Andrew Connell commented  · 

    Hey @Pat

    RE #1 - For *local* workbench, offline/airplane mode would be my preference. For "connected" (if developers wanted to use real SP data), I think requiring them to use the SPO hosted workbench / real lists is acceptable. Keeping the 100% offline mode for the local workbench is ideal as it facilitates full test coverage (unit | integration & E2E) without prompting for authentication, etc. With that being said, see 2B below as I'll contradict this last point...

    RE #2 - Two ways to look at this IMHO... I'll answer as if I was the PM on the feature. Not trying to overstep my position in any way instead using this as a way to best communicate my thoughts "if I was in your shoes" :)

    (2A) RE "pickers", that is how the current model works with CSWP's as you have to always add them to the page when testing with the workbench. Therefore, this would seem like a P1.
    (2B) Ideally, there would be a way to launch the workbench and provision something... either programmatically or via a declarative JSON approach. Think about the CI/CD world - today it's not really possible (without a lot of unique UI instrumentation code) to fully test a SPFx component (CSWP / extension)... one can do unit testing with existing JS libraries, but you can't do full E2E testing because you first have to launch the workbench and then manipulate the UX to add the CSWP to the canvas.

    Does that help?

    Andrew Connell shared this idea  · 
  4. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Suggestion Archive  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andrew Connell shared this idea  · 
  5. 19 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SharePoint Dev Platform » SharePoint Framework  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Andrew Connell shared this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base