function readOnly(count){ }
Sign Up ›
Starting November 20, the site will be set to read-only. On December 4, 2023,
forum discussions will move to the Trailblazer Community.
Learn More

Browse by Topic
ShowAll Questionssorted byDate Posted
+ Start a Discussion
JestonJeston 

Overriding standard page layout with custom Lightning component for one record type

Hi all! We developed custom Lightning components and override standard actions for an object like View, Edit and some other with these components. It works OK, but now we've got the task to have two record types for this object and the new record type should have standard page layouts, not our components. The problem is overriding standard actions affects all record types. Is there any way to achieve what we need?
David Zhu 🔥David Zhu 🔥
You can create a new FlexiPage (Setup | Search Lighting App Builder ) or clone an existing Flexi Page; modify page accordinly.
When activating the Flexipage, go to the third tab "App, Record Type and Profile", Assign the page to the right record type.
viswanath reddy 53viswanath reddy 53
Hi Jesse Ku 2,

It looks like our team of experts can help you resolve this ticket.
We have Salesforce global help-desk support and you can log a case and our Customer Success Agents will help you solve this issue. You can also speak to them on live chat. Click on the below link to contact our help-desk. Trust me it is a support service that we are offering for free!

https://jbshelpdesk.secure.force.com

Thanks,
Jarvis SFDC team
JestonJeston
David, thank you for reply! As we understand flexipages are used for viewing records. When a record is edited, then standard popup edit window is opened independently on what page is used for viewing. Are we correct? If yes, then there is a problem here. As we wrote in question Edit action is overriden as well and this part of customization is the most complex and important for us. But we'd like to apply standard edit window for one record type and our custom Lightning component for another one. Is it possible? Or we want too much from SFDC? :) We could create two different objects instead two record types in one objects but we're a kind of short of objects in use due to limited licenses.
JestonJeston
Thanks Viswanath! We've posted the same case on Jarvis, too!