Send for Review gives wrong folder permissions

As per
my
last post , it looks like when a page is "Sent for Review" that
the folder created by Contribute is not getting the proper
permissions on my server. I have all of my folders set to be 775
and to inherit permissions from the parent folder, but it's getting
RWX for the owner, RX for the group and nothing for everyone. I
don't mind the everyone part, but the group needs full permissions.
Does anyone have an idea as to why Contribute would act this
way? I'm on a Mac OS X 10.4.10 server running Apache, if it helps.

Bumped because this is becoming a real problem...I have a
plist on my mac now that will update the permissions on my whole
web folder so that it is owned and grouped to WWW and permissions
are correct, but I still get the error when a document going for
review is published.
One of the main reasons we decided to use Contribute was so
that we can use this particular function, and it's not working. Can
anyone please help with this?

Similar Messages

Send for review - sub directory

Is there any way to tell contribute not to create sub
directories for draft reviews? I am using php includes and the
"Send for Review" function isn't working very well. Basically, I
include "includes/somefile.php". If Contribute creates {page
name}_php_MMtmp77bc04e1/{page name} as the draft, then my relative
path includes are out the window.
Is there any reason why Contribute can't just create the
draft as {page name}_php_MMtmp77bc04e1.php instead of creating a
sub directory and re-writing links, etc?
Sure, I could make all of my includes absolute paths on every
page, but that would require some extra work and is not a very
clean way to do things. It would also make updating the includes a
real nightmare.
Thanks!

I have the same problem and it's driving me crazy.
So is there anyway to get Contribute to stop:
A.) Putting drafts in sub directories?
B.) Stop modifying absolute links, php includes, etc. into
relative links?
My problem is when a user edits a page and sends it for
review (or saves a draft) Contribute will take all my Template's
absolute paths (ie <?php
include('/home/smwc/public_html/includes/footer.inc.php'); ?>
and turns it into <?php
include('../../home/smwc/public_html/includes/footer.inc.php');
?> which obviously screws everything up.
When the draft is published then, none of the PHP includes
work. It's also doing this with stylesheets
(src="/scripts/css/style.css" to
src="../../scripts/css/style.css").
I believe if I could just get it to store drafts in the root
folder it might actually solve the problem (messy solution, but at
least every page wouldn't break).

CP5.5 / Reviewer 2.5 issues - can't send for review

Help! I am using cp5.5 and I did "Collaborate->Send for Shared Review", I choose acrobat.com and login just fine. I get to the screen where I am to enter an email address recipient and no matter what I put, it spins for a minute and then says "Enter a valid Email". What the heck am I doing wrong? I KNOW I've seen this error in the past but can't remember for the life of me what fixes it.
Also, the link to reviewer 2.5 is bad. How do I get my client the reviewer?
Thanks so much!
Lori

Probably too late for the answers but I found:
1. There seems to be a bug in Captivate that if you don't specify an email address in File > Project Info you get that problem when sending for review where it says "Enter a valid Email ID" and hangs.
2. I found the Captivate Reviewer 2.5 installer in C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Adobe Captivate 5.5\AirApps
Jim

Runtime Error when trying to "Send for Review"

Runtime error on Contribute.exe
This application has reqeusted the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual way.....
User had just finished editing, clicked "Send", selected "Send for Review", then selected a person's name in the list to send it to....
Any ideas...? thanks

This is Adobe Contribute CS4 v5.0
& Office 2007

Send for Review problem

Working on Contribute3. Administrator is not on the list of
users to send drafts for review. All other users appear fine.
Site setup and Admin acct was created on an earlier version
of Contribute. All other users were created in Contribute3. Is that
why I am having this problem?
Thanks for any input!

Hi,
There were users in Contribute 2.0 Everything was based on
the roles. Contribute 2.0 did not support the feature of send for
review.
Roles were only present in contribute 2.0. User based
management existed only from Contribute 3.0
You have to add users in Contribute 3.0.
Please get back if you have any questions.
Thanks,

Send for Review ONLY via email

I have a client set up as a "Publisher" and I am the
"Administrator". When she pushes the "send for review" button, she
doesn't get the dialog box asking if she wants to send via email or
via contribute - it simply launches her email program with the link
in the message. Of course that means I can see it, but not revise
it.
I can't find anything in preferences on either of our
computers to restore this dialog box. (She's using a trial of CS3,
mine is v3, by the way.) Anyone have this happen?
Thank you in advance...

anoleye wrote:
> The client's C3 does this all from her computer - it
doesn't check with the
> server or anything - so I don't think this has to do
with anything on my
> computer. There is no option to send via Contribute - it
just goes straight to
> email.
>
> Right now, I'm not that thrilled with this program, so
I'm not inclined to
> upgrade. It seems slow (both of us have DSL) and buggy.
>
>
If you have connected to your site using the latest version
of
Contribute CS3, please make sure you "Administer" the site
atleast once.
This will fix all your email review problems. The reason to
do this is
because, Contribute CS3 has some additional administrative
settings like
PDF embedding/linking etc. So if you just connect to your
site with
latest version of Contribute CS3 and not administer it, then
the hub
file does not have the newer settings... i know this may not
clarify you
completely, but yes... Administering with Contribute CS3
should solve
your problem... Also not that once administered with higher
version, you
cannot administer it with lower versions.

Vista Mail and Send for review

Since I switched from XP to Vista the 'Send for Review' or 'Send Comments' feature is no more working inside Adobe Reader 8?

hi adam,
i am not really sure why the link is not working but have you
tried saving the connection key an then just attach it to the
email? maybe it will work that way.
-jc

Cannot use Send for Review

Would you know why Contribute close down with no error
message when I use the Send for Review option?
I am running this program on Windows XP Professional.
Thank you guys

Hi,
Do you have any crash logs generated for the same while
Contributes shuts down?
If yes please send the mdmp file that gets created in the
desktop when contribute crashes. That would help us finding out the
cause of the problem.
You can send me a private message with the crash logs
Thanks,
Radhika

Customize Send for Review dialog?

Contribute 3.11 Windows
Is there any way to customize the Send for Review dialog in
order to
disable the "Send the draft to another Contribute user"
choice? None of
our reviewers have Contribute, and editors have the ability
to publish.
I just had a user choose "Send the draft to another
Contribute user" by
mistake to "All users in the 'x' role." Now they can't edit
or publish
the page, and I had to hack into the .LCK file which was a
pain.
However, the "Send for Review" dialog box doesn't seem to be
in the
configuration files.
Charles "Chas" Belov

anoleye wrote:
> The client's C3 does this all from her computer - it
doesn't check with the
> server or anything - so I don't think this has to do
with anything on my
> computer. There is no option to send via Contribute - it
just goes straight to
> email.
>
> Right now, I'm not that thrilled with this program, so
I'm not inclined to
> upgrade. It seems slow (both of us have DSL) and buggy.
>
>
If you have connected to your site using the latest version
of
Contribute CS3, please make sure you "Administer" the site
atleast once.
This will fix all your email review problems. The reason to
do this is
because, Contribute CS3 has some additional administrative
settings like
PDF embedding/linking etc. So if you just connect to your
site with
latest version of Contribute CS3 and not administer it, then
the hub
file does not have the newer settings... i know this may not
clarify you
completely, but yes... Administering with Contribute CS3
should solve
your problem... Also not that once administered with higher
version, you
cannot administer it with lower versions.

Send for Review: FINAL WORD for Publishing

Hi,
I would like to make sure I will ALWAYS receive ALL drafts
Contribute users are sending for review. Is there any way I can set
up my Administrator e-mail address as a default no matter if drafts
are sent to others also? Ideally I would like to be the one who has
the FINAL WORD since I need to make sure all layout is consistent.
Maybe something like no matter who reviews I will be the last one
and the ONLY one able to publish?

<<Ideally I would like to be the one who has the FINAL
WORD since I need to make sure all layout is consistent. Maybe
something like no matter who reviews I will be the last one and the
ONLY one able to publish?>>
In case if you are admin then the above requirement can be
achieved by removing the publish permission for all the roles
except admin, it will automatically enforce all the users to sent
the drafts to admin to get it published.
In case you are not a admin contact the site admin to create
a role which has a publish permission and get added yourself under
that role and remove the publish permission for all the other roles
by editing different roles and un-checking the check box "Allow
users to publish files"
Thanks,
Manoj

Send for Review

I am trying to test the Send for Review feature in Captivate 4. I am able to send it to myself, open the file, make comments, and then save it. However, when I send it back to myself, it is opening as a Microsoft outlook file, or else just as code. Any ideas on how I can see the comments?

Hi there
When you elected to send it for review, you specified a location for the comments to be placed. After you viewed and saved the file, the comments should just appear in Captivate. But you will need to click Window > Comments in order to see the comments.
Cheers... Rick
Helpful and Handy Links
Begin learning Captivate 5 moments from now! $29.95
Captivate Wish Form/Bug Reporting Form
Adobe Certified Captivate Training
SorcererStone Blog
Captivate eBooks

Send for review user list

In the Send for review user list, we have a list of users and
groups. Does anyone know anyway to edit this list to show the
Administrator group only? Our users often forget to choose the
Administrator group instead of a single Admin when sending their
drafts.

If you're not using the Publishing Server, Contribute does
need to write to an obfuscated directory on the server to keep
track of users and roles on the site.
I noticed a similar problem to the one you describe. And I
think the key is that the users have to have actually connected to
the site. It's not enough to just import the key, because
Contribute may not make a connection at that point. You can only be
sure that they'll show up if they browse to that site while
connected, for long enough that Contribute recognizes that it's
displaying a site on its connection key list.
The last part could be a hangup. In my experinece (OS X
Intel), it takes Contribute between 15 and 30 seconds to register
that it's on a site for which it has a connection. It might take
another 15-30 seconds to connect. So your users have to make sure
that they're viewing the site for long enough that all the buttons
at the top of the viewing pane show the right status.

Select for update gives wrong results. Is it a bug?

Hi,
Select for update gives wrong results. Is it a bug?
CREATE TABLE TaxIds
TaxId NUMBER(6) NOT NULL,
LocationId NUMBER(3) NOT NULL,
Status NUMBER(1)
PARTITION BY LIST (LocationId)
PARTITION P111 VALUES (111),
PARTITION P222 VALUES (222),
PARTITION P333 VALUES (333)
ALTER TABLE TaxIds ADD ( CONSTRAINT PK_TaxIds PRIMARY KEY (TaxId));
CREATE INDEX NI_TaxIdsStatus ON TaxIds ( NVL(Status,0) ) LOCAL;
Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100101, 111, NULL);
Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100102, 111, NULL);
Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100103, 111, NULL);
Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100104, 111, NULL);
Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (200101, 222, NULL);
Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (200102, 222, NULL);
Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (200103, 222, NULL);
--Session_1 return TAXID=100101
select TAXID from TAXIDS where LOCATIONID=111 and NVL(STATUS,0)=0 AND rownum=1 for update
--Session_2 waits commit
select TAXID from TAXIDS where LOCATIONID=111 and NVL(STATUS,0)=0 AND rownum=1 for update
--Session_1
update TAXIDS set STATUS=1 Where TaxId=100101;
commit;
--Session_2 return 100101 opps!?
--Session_1 return TAXID=100102
select TAXID, STATUS from TAXIDS where LOCATIONID=111 and NVL(STATUS,0)=0 AND rownum=1 for update
--Session_2 waits commit
select TAXID, STATUS from TAXIDS where LOCATIONID=111 and NVL(STATUS,0)=0 AND rownum=1 for update
--Session_1
update TAXIDS set STATUS=1 Where TaxId=100102;
commit;
--Session_2 return 100103

This is a bug. Got to be a bug.
This should be nothing to do with indeterminate results from ROWNUM, and nothing to do with read consistency at the point of statement start time in session2., surely.
Session 2 should never return 100101 once the lock from session 1 is released.
The SELECT FOR UPDATE should restart and 100101 should not be selected as it does not meet the criteria of the select.
A statement restart should ensure this.
A number of demos highlight this.
Firstly, recall the original observation in the original test case.
Setup
SQL> DROP TABLE taxids;
Table dropped.
SQL>
SQL> CREATE TABLE TaxIds
2 (TaxId NUMBER(6) NOT NULL,
3   LocationId NUMBER(3) NOT NULL,
4   Status NUMBER(1))
5 PARTITION BY LIST (LocationId)
6 (PARTITION P111 VALUES (111),
7   PARTITION P222 VALUES (222),
8   PARTITION P333 VALUES (333));
Table created.
SQL>
SQL> ALTER TABLE TaxIds ADD ( CONSTRAINT PK_TaxIds PRIMARY KEY (TaxId));
Table altered.
SQL>
SQL> CREATE INDEX NI_TaxIdsStatus ON TaxIds ( NVL(Status,0) ) LOCAL;
Index created.
SQL>
SQL>
SQL> Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100101, 111, NULL);
1 row created.
SQL> Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100102, 111, NULL);
1 row created.
SQL> Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100103, 111, NULL);
1 row created.
SQL> Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (100104, 111, NULL);
1 row created.
SQL> Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (200101, 222, NULL);
1 row created.
SQL> Insert into TAXIDS (TAXID, LOCATIONID, STATUS) Values (200102, 222, NULL);
1 row created.
SQL> commit;
Commit complete.
SQL> Original observation:
Session1>SELECT taxid
2 FROM   taxids
3 WHERE locationid    = 111
4 AND    NVL(STATUS,0) = 0
5 AND    ROWNUM        = 1
6 FOR UPDATE;
     TAXID
    100101
Session1>
--> Session 2 with same statement hangs until
Session1>BEGIN
2   UPDATE taxids SET status=1 WHERE taxid=100101;
3   COMMIT;
4 END;
5 /
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
Session1>
--> At which point, Session 2 returns
Session2>SELECT taxid
2 FROM   taxids
3 WHERE locationid    = 111
4 AND    NVL(STATUS,0) = 0
5 AND    ROWNUM        = 1
6 FOR UPDATE;
     TAXID
    100101
Session2>There's no way that session 2 should have returned 100101. That is the point of FOR UPDATE. It completely reintroduces the lost UPDATE scenario.
Secondly, what happens if we drop the index.
Let's reset the data and drop the index:
Session1>UPDATE taxids SET status=0 where taxid=100101;
1 row updated.
Session1>commit;
Commit complete.
Session1>drop index NI_TaxIdsStatus;
Index dropped.
Session1>Then try again:
Session1>SELECT taxid
2 FROM   taxids
3 WHERE locationid    = 111
4 AND    NVL(STATUS,0) = 0
5 AND    ROWNUM        = 1
6 FOR UPDATE;
     TAXID
    100101
Session1>
--> Session 2 hangs again until
Session1>BEGIN
2   UPDATE taxids SET status=1 WHERE taxid=100101;
3   COMMIT;
4 END;
5 /
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
Session1>
--> At which point in session 2:
Session2>SELECT taxid
2 FROM   taxids
3 WHERE locationid    = 111
4 AND    NVL(STATUS,0) = 0
5 AND    ROWNUM        = 1
6 FOR UPDATE;
     TAXID
    100102
Session2>Proves nothing, Non-deterministic ROWNUM you say.
Then let's reset, recreate the index and explicity ask then for row 100101.
It should give the same result as the ROWNUM query without any doubts over the ROWNUM, etc.
If the original behaviour was correct, session 2 should also be able to get 100101:
Session1>SELECT taxid
2 FROM   taxids
3 WHERE locationid    = 111
4 AND    NVL(STATUS,0) = 0
5 AND    taxid         = 100101
6 FOR UPDATE;
     TAXID
    100101
Session1>
--> same statement hangs in session 2 until
Session1>BEGIN
2   UPDATE taxids SET status=1 WHERE taxid=100101;
3   COMMIT;
4 END;
5 /
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
Session1>
--> so session 2 stops being blocked and:
Session2>SELECT taxid
2 FROM   taxids
3 WHERE locationid    = 111
4 AND    NVL(STATUS,0) = 0
5 AND    taxid         = 100101
6 FOR UPDATE;
no rows selected
Session2>Of course, this is how it should happen, surely?
Just to double check, let's reintroduce ROWNUM but force the order by to show it's not about read consistency at the start of the statement - restart should prevent it.
(reset, then)
Session1> select t.taxid
2   from
3    (select taxid, rowid rd
4      from   taxids
5      where locationid = 111
6      and    nvl(status,0) = 0
7      order by taxid) x
8   , taxids t
9   where t.rowid = x.rd
10   and   rownum = 1
11   for update of t.status;
     TAXID
    100101
Session1>
--> Yes, session 2 hangs until...
Session1>BEGIN
2   UPDATE taxids SET status=1 WHERE taxid=100101;
3   COMMIT;
4 END;
5 /
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
Session1>
--> and then
Session2> select t.taxid
2   from
3    (select taxid, rowid rd
4      from   taxids
5      where locationid = 111
6      and    nvl(status,0) = 0
7      order by taxid) x
8   , taxids t
9   where t.rowid = x.rd
10   and   rownum = 1
11   for update of t.status;
     TAXID
    100102
Session2>Session 2 should never be allowed to get 100101 once the lock is released.
This is a bug.
The worrying thing is that I can reproduce in 9.2.0.8 and 11.2.0.2.

Contribute crashing when sending for review

(MAC USERS) I'm getting a crash when you click 'send for
review'... contribute tries to paste the page into Apples cheapy
email program called 'Mail'. Says "shucks could not complete this
task". I want the 'publisher' role to send the page to the
'administrator' for review. Any ideas around this error... maybe we
should be using Entouroge or Outlook?
Aaron

I doubt it's a problem with Apple Mail. (Which is actually
pretty sophisticated, FWIW.)
We had a similar problem, but my recollection is that it went
away when we used the most current available version of Contribute.
We install the most current available trial version and then apply
our license codes -- we don't rely on the files we downloaded when
we purchased our 5-pack.

Send for Review users

at what point does the "users" folder get created .....is it
when the connection key is consumed and the user first connects?
What folder/file permissions are required are these folders (_mm,
ct3beta, messaging etc...)?

2 notes: I am not using Contribute Publishing Server and I
send connection keys with users mapping drives to the same network
share. The 'users who have connected' only lists me....therefore
the folders must be created by the user when connecting with the
connection key. The permissions for the _mm folders must not be
correct. The editors and publishers can edit and publish but no one
can send a draft for review. Without good workflow, Contribute is
just another editor with a rollback. Any thoughts on the
permissions? Am I correct?

Send for Review gives wrong folder permissions

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for