https://discord.umbraco.com logo
Join Discord
Powered by
Adding a custom UmbracoContextIndex for protected ...
# help-with-umbraco
m
Wondered if anyone could comment if this is a reasonable approach for an index including protected content and should be ok It seems to work ok including updating the index on content publish/unpublish, and not affect the other indexes. Only oddity I've seen is clicking rebuild index manually gives different no of nodes but un/publishing another node and revisit and it's back to what it ought to be. 
options.Validator = new ContentValueSetValidator(true, true, _publicAccessService, _scopeProvider);
is the key I think. PS this is in 11.3.1
tendersumbracocontentindex
d
Looks good to me. I'm kinda surprised that you can rebuild your index, because I didn't see that your index populator actually registers as a populator for your particular index.
I'm also pretty sure you can just use Umbraco's own value set builder directly instead of inheriting in your own class. Just inject 
IUmbracoContentValueSetBuilder
iirc
m
ta, I sort of assumed that 
builder.Services.AddSingleton<IIndexPopulator, ProductsIndexPopulator>();
was all that was required. and that the configure by options approach maped the populator by index name?
had another look and a slightly different approach with 
UmbracoContextIndex
, seems a little cleaner. Think this way also means that we inherit the improvements/actions for when content/ancestor is un-protected to update the index.
tendersumbracocontentindex
d
Nah, in the constructor you're supposed to explicitly state that the populator populates that specific index. But I think maybe because your index inherits from 
UmbracoContentIndex
, it's automatically picked up by the built-in populator of Umbraco
m
two different apporaches here now.. first one where populator is at fault is prob as you say missing the populator def.
second one is so that I get all the umb core goodness without having to reimplement.
d
Yeah, the second approach looks more simple and should work well
Technically, I think you're supposed to use the valueset validator to filter out valuesets that you don't want, but your approach with the where clause is nice and simple, so I don't think you need to go out of your way to make a validator
m
yeah.. but reusing https://github.com/umbraco/Umbraco-CMS/blob/contrib/src/Umbraco.Infrastructure/Examine/ContentValueSetValidator.cs rather than copying just to add in the filter was the intention and not having to monitor for changes. I could just have left it and ended up with a clone of the externalindex (but with protected content) and filtered by 
__NodeTypeAlias
there. (as is suggested in the docs that suggest best practise is just to work within the core implemented indexes though not sure how with the omission of any protected content in the external index.. perhaps the external index should default index protected and we should also filter for not protected as required, if it even flags protected??)
d
Well, you can enable indexation of protected content on the external index. The best practice is there because indexing content is a timeconsuming process, so you want to minimize that much as possible, but there are definitely good reasons to make your own index.
m
can you? thought I saw a comment from HQ that altering to protected on the external index wasn't supported?
d
I've done it on U8 and U10, I can look up the example for you if you like
m
U8, but not netcore ones was my understanding..
Hi there @aguyfromdenmark, we have no plans to include protected nodes in the index by default or by configurations at this point.
d
By default or by configuration not, but you can with a piece of code 😄
m
nearly a year ago now.. so maybe I read that as gospel.
it's only a recent merge to add the protectedContent bool on the Interface?
Copy code
csharp
using Examine.Lucene;
using Microsoft.Extensions.Options;
using Umbraco.Cms.Core;
using Umbraco.Cms.Infrastructure.Examine;

namespace Umbraco.Docs.Samples.Web.CustomIndexing
{
    public class ConfigureExternalIndexOptions : IConfigureNamedOptions<LuceneDirectoryIndexOptions>
    {
        public void Configure(string name, LuceneDirectoryIndexOptions options)
        {
            if (name.Equals(Constants.UmbracoIndexes.ExternalIndexName))
            {
                options.Validator = new ContentValueSetValidator(true, true, _publicAccessService, _scopeProvider);
            }
        }

        // Part of the interface, but does not need to be implemented for this.
        public void Configure(LuceneDirectoryIndexOptions options)
        {
            throw new System.NotImplementedException();
        }
    }
}
d
Yes, pretty much
m
That's what I thought was configuration! that was being talked about.
d
Ah, they probably meant 'appsettings'
m
oh well a journey of discovery.. so no time is mispent.
I quite like having the separate index though.. makes me feel safer about the protected content being more secure.
d
I've done just that. I am actually currently working on a multisite project with one private site and one public site on a single Umbraco instance. I created separate indexes for each so that you can't accidentally find private content on the public site
m
Also just looking at the index.. can't see where there is a flag for this protected content.. or protected to whom..
I must be missing something.
d
No, I don't think you're missing anything. Protection data doesn't seem to be indexed
m
well that sucks.. was expecting at least membergroups..
d
There are still good options to index those values yourself
I don't know how one would find the protection data though
m
yeah just thinking that..
🙂
_publicAccessService.IsProtected(content.Path);
??
d
Perhaps, you can ofcourse look in the source code how the valueset validator checks for it or see how the context menu in Umbraco retrieves protection data for a node
m
Copy code
public bool ValidateProtectedContent(string path, string category)
    {
        if (category == IndexTypes.Content && !SupportProtectedContent)
        {
            //if the service is null we can't look this up so we'll return false
            if (_publicAccessService == null || _scopeProvider == null)
            {
                return false;
            }

            // explicit scope since we may be in a background thread
            using (_scopeProvider.CreateScope(autoComplete: true))
            {
                if (_publicAccessService.IsProtected(path).Success)
                {
                    return false;
                }
            }
        }

        return true;
    }
yeah that was where I saw it.. though only protected or not.. not for whom
_publicAccessRepository
looks like the store.
yep looks like that's the ticket..
d
Nice!
m
Thanks for your help!
27 Views
PreviousNext
Powered by