Unanswered

Tooltips for Web Links

(0) Share

Report

Posted on by James

Hi all

A customer of mine would like to edit the tooltip displayed on the rendered Web Links menu in Power Pages, but I can't find any field on the Web Link entity that seems to map to the .tooltip attribute on the Web Link Liquid object?

The .tooltip attribute on the Web Link Liquid object seems to contain the same value as the .name attribute, with no way to change it on the Portal Management app, or in the Studio designer.

In the short term, I've resorted to adding a custom text field on the adx_weblink entity, and referencing that in my Header template, but the existence of the .tooltip liquid attribute seems to suggest it should be mapped to an existing field in the Portal Management app?

Liquid Web Link Attributes showing the Tooltip attribute.

Liquid Web Links Example Documentation showing the Tooltip attribute being used in the Web Link Set Header template.

Portal Management App Documentation with no mention of Tooltip.

Inspecting the adx_weblink entity also shows no attributes relating to Tooltip.

Note, they are using ADX, not MSPP, but I don't see it on the MSPP entity, either?

Thanks!

James

Categories:

Design & build

I have the same question (0)

All responses (2)

Answers (1)

Verified answer

oliver.rodrigues 9,368 Most Valuable Professional on at

Like (1)

Report

Microsoft discourages making any changes to the Portal data model, so ideally we shouldn't be adding fields to adx_ tables, as now Microsoft is changing to the Enhanced Data Model, the physical adx_ tables are now virtual, so you probably wouldn't be able to retrieve any custom columns there.

It seems that this is a gap in the Portal implementation, one quick way to resolve this is to use the Description field instead.

Just navigate to your Header Web Template and replace everywhere that has link.tooltip to link.description (including sublinks).

afaik the Description field is not used anything else, so it's a good alternative:

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
James 7 on at

Like (1)

Report

Thanks @OliverRodrigues. We did consider using this field, and had actually implemented it, but then our thinking was that this field seemed likely already earmarked for certain functionality (since it's even specific enough to mention that it's value is in HTML), and so we didn't want to reduce the existing functionality options going forward.

But based on what you're saying, going back to using the Description fields seems the best option. We will re-implement it.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No