Let’s talk about something I really don’t like: e-mail. Let me clarify this by saying I loathe e-mails on team projects. Why? Persistence. Conversations via e-mail have this perception they will be “found” at a later time, but the proposed value is rarely so useful. Furthermore, new team members or collaborators rarely ever get that context, because it’s buried in another person’s e-mail. This is my approach to how teams should communicate to ensure longevity of this critically important information.
The way My Sites are created in SharePoint 2013 is vastly different from SharePoint 2010, but for good reason. I won’t go into the details of how it’s changed, as Wictor Wilen has done an excellent job of this already in his blog post SharePoint 2013: Personal Site Instantiation Queues and Bad Throughput. I encountered problems with a new development workstation not setting up My Sites for users appropriately – blocking us from testing our solution, which was dependent upon a user having a My Site. In looking online (and in Wictor’s blog post), everything was pointing to checking the following three timer jobs:
- My Site Instantiation Interactive Request Queue
- My Site Instantiation Non-Interactive Request Queue
- My Site Second Instantiation Interactive Request Queue
The problem is, those timer jobs were missing from my server!
I’m in the process of migrating my customer from SharePoint 2010 to SharePoint 2013. In their SharePoint 2010 environment, they were still using classic-mode authentication, but are switching to claims-based authentication in SharePoint 2013.
The recommended path to upgrade from 2010 to 2013 is a content and service-application database migration. This works great for us since we have to do this piecemeal. However, many of the general approaches for converting to claims-based authentication is to do so at the web-application level, rather than the content-database level (source: TechNet).
In SharePoint 2013, there’s actually an
SPWebApplication method dubbed
MigrateUsersToClaims that takes 3 arguments:
There was no guidance on the NTAccount, other than the user “performing” the operation. I opted to use the farm account to ensure it had the appropriate level of permissions. The true power of the content database migration comes in with the third parameter. We can add individual content databases to migrate with this parameter rather than worrying about the entire web application.
Props go to Steve Peschka who originally pointed this out. However, in his post, the PowerShell to do this upgrade was the following:
For me, that throws the error
Exception calling "MigrateUsersToClaims" with "3" argument(s): "Operation is not valid due to the current state of the object." This was strange, and I couldn’t figure it out. So, I cracked open the
Microsoft.SharePoint.Administration dll and took a look at the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
That second one was the one that I questioned. I know the conditions matched for the first two checks. The question was how my parameters looked. Sure enough:
1 2 3 4 5
With that, if I changed the middle parameter from
$false, the migration finally ran (and completed) succesfully.
Why did this happen? This was because my
$acc user is my farm account. I’m also running my PowerShell session as my farm account. This is to ensure that I have full, unfettered access to the SharePoint Object Model and the Content Database. The middle parameter states (from MSDN):
The **account** will be given the correct permissions to perform the operation. Should this permission be removed when the operation is complete.
We definitely don’t want this for the farm account. So, my updated code, for reference:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cheers. Once again, thanks go to Steve Peschka for figuring this out.
I have just completed building my first SharePoint 2013 application. I came across the error message
Sorry, only tenant administrators can add or give access to this app. when trying to deploy the application to my site. This happened regardless if I was deploying using a SharePoint development site or after installing the solution in the app catalog.
Now, the concept of a “Tenant” makes sense for Office 365 or SharePoint Online. As a hosting provider, there are multiple tenants you want to support in a single environment. However, for an on-premise deployment, this error message didn’t make much sense. I started poking around and came across spinning up a tenant administration site, being able to set multiple app tenants through the App Management Service cmdlets, but none of those really seemed like the right solution for my on-premise deployment. I found an MDSN Forum Question which seemed closer to the solution. That post recommends splitting the service accounts used to host the App Management and Site Settings services from the farm account. This was critical as the Farm Account is not allowed to add apps under its identity whatsoever. You will get an error message when trying to provision, and the ULS logs will indicate that an assertion failed checking that the current account was not the system account.
What did it turn out to be? I just needed to make sure my user account was directly added as a member of the Farm Administrators group. We have traditionally deployed farm administrators via an Active Directory and local (Administrators) group. However, it appears that the App Management service dislikes this approach and wants users explicitly permissioned to the Farm Administrators group. Additionally, after granting your user direct permissions, you need to issue an
iisreset so those changes take effect. Then, you can provision your app successfully.
I’ve recently switched from using Subversion directly to using git svn to allow me to use a git workflow, but interact with a subversion repository. It works great, except when I needed to interactive rebase…
The last two weeks have been interesting. I’ve been trying to deploy an app part built as part of a SharePoint 2013 app I developed recently. The app part re-creates the “Suggestions” functionality that you see when visiting the “Followed Sites” and “Followed People” pages in your My Site. Those web parts were not easily reused in other parts of My Sites. The purpose of creating this app part was to be able to add suggestions directly to the Newsfeed page to make it a more useful information radiator. Unfortunately, editing the Newsfeed page (or any page) in the “My Site Host” was not nearly as intuitive as I had hoped.
I’m used to having the ribbon to edit pages in SharePoint, regardless if they are standard publishing pages or web part pages. However, in the “My Site Host”, there is no ribbon for the standard pages, even when you are a farm administrator. I jumped to the conclusion that I could add the App Part via SharePoint Designer. Sadly, this wasn’t the case. SharePoint Designer does not list any app parts.
I tried to go through the rigarmarole of adding the app to a separate site through the web editor, then copying the code from within SharePoint Designer and pasting it into the Newsfeed page, only for that to fail. The identifiers for the apps are completely different.
This is when I stepped back and though that the solution should be simpler than this. It turns out, it was. Click the gear icon (settings menu) in the upper-right corner of SharePoint and you’ll find the Edit Page link. I felt liberated and frustrated at myself for not checking there earlier. From there, you have complete control to edit the Newsfeed web part page (or any page in the “My Site Host”).
Quicktate is a service for which I’ve been consulting for since 2009. We have recently released a new RESTful API to help make integrating with the service a breeze. That said, while our new RESTful API documentation uses Swagger to generate our service documentation, many of the common RESTful semantics we rely on are completely missing from that documentation. Until we figure out an easier way to convey that information via Swagger, here’s some basic information on how to get around the API.
I started playing around with SQL filestreams yesterday. We have a need to store large binary objects both quickly and efficiently from SharePoint in our SQL database for regulatory purposes. I found a great article on Code Project on how to actually store binary data in a filestream column. However, as I ran the code, I encountered a
Win32Exception with the message “Access is denied.”.
I double (and triple) checked that the permissions for the account executing the code were correct. Since we’re using SharePoint, we are using only Windows authentication. Furthermore, I made sure that our connection string was using Integrated Security:
Ultimately, it came down to the fact that the SQL Server was not setup to allow remote server connections to filestream. I managed to fix this by following the Enable and Configure FILESTREAM article on MSDN. The Allow remote clients to have streaming access to FILESTREAM data. box was not checked, thus causing my problems.
Last weekend and this weekend I spent a good deal of time trying to track down a PHP error I was having in my customer’s production environment. This wasn’t an exception being thrown by PHP, but rather, I couldn’t readily identify if it was a PHP error or not, because different parts of our infrastructure were throwing different errors during the request.