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
JimPDXJimPDX 

Inconsistent output - Sites page vs internal VF page

We have run into an inconsistency between the same page being served within the app (c.na6.visual.force blah blah) and the live Sites page. Here is the output followed by the code.... The page on the Sites URL is not showing the related product (wine) Name...

https://c.na6.visual.force.com/apex/test [^]

a0G80000001H0hHEAS ---- IX04RED750
a0G80000001HDntEAG ---- HL93CAB750
a0G80000001HDnpEAG ---- IX02CAB750
a0G80000001HDnoEAG ---- HL92CAB750

http://colgin.force.com/test [^]

a0G80000001H0hHEAS ----
a0G80000001HDntEAG ----
a0G80000001HDnpEAG ----
a0G80000001HDnoEAG ----


The basic join is as follows:


[Select Wine__r.Id, Wine__r.Name, Id From Offering_Wine__c]
Wine__r.Name. Wine__r.Id
 


Here is the page which produces it (ugly test code obviously)

<apex:page cache="true" showHeader="false" sidebar="false" controller="testclass">
<br><br><br><br>
<apex:form >
<apex:commandButton action="{!invite_email}" value="Save" id="theButton"/>
</apex:form>
{!TestAcc.Id} ---- {!TestAcc.Wine__r.Name}
<br><br><br>
<apex:repeat value="{!TestAcc2}" var="Te">
{!Te.Id} ---- {!Te.Wine__r.Name}
<br/>
</apex:repeat>
NM-{!TestAcc3}
</apex:page>
 
 
Ideas? At first I suspected "Public Access Settings" but I don't believe that is it? They have read perms on all the objects involved. 
Message Edited by jimson on  03-05-2009 03:47 PM


Best Answer chosen by Admin (Salesforce Developers) 
BulentBulent
Can you check the field level security via the Public Access Settings for the related custom object?


All Answers
BulentBulent
Can you check the field level security via the Public Access Settings for the related custom object?
This was selected as the best answer
JimPDXJimPDX
Awesome - that fixed it. The weird part is, the field-level security was very inconsistent field to field. When I setup this object architecture I did not restrict visibility at all? But yet that was the problem. Thanks guys.


BulentBulent
Jim, 
site profile is not exposed in other places in the app by design. When you say you didn't restrict visibility when you created the object, it does not impact site public access settings.
We wanted to prevent users exposing fields without knowingly on the public site.
All the setup related to site needs to go via the public access settings