I have searched this forum for ViewPreviousPage problems. I see that there are problems out there and that there are hardly any solutions. I have never seen this particular problem out there.
I have a web view. It is a categorized view with the “Don’t show empty categories” checked. The documents have Readers fields in them so that certain users can see all documents, certain readers can only see some of these documents (and categories).
Of course, I use
@DbCommand(“Domino”; “ViewPreviousPage”)
and
@DbCommand(“Domino”; “ViewNextPage”)
to navigate through the view.
When I View Next as a user who can see all documents, I start with OpenView&Start=1 , it goes to OpenView&Start=30, OpenView&Start=59 etc… (adding 29 to the Start every time as it should)
When I View Previous, it also works just as it should. It goes from OpenView&Start=59 to OpenView&Start=30 to OpenView&Start=1 .
Now, when I am a user who can only see about a half of the documents, it pages up with the ViewNextPage just fine. It will go from OpenView&Start=1 to OpenView&Start=46 to OpenView&Start=82 (so it skips the hidden categories as it should).
Paging Down is a problem, however. If I page down from OpenView&Start=82 , it should go to OpenView&Start=46 (because of the hidden categories … that is how it paged up), BUT instead it pages down to OpenView&Start=53 (82-29=53). So, instead of skipping the hidden categories, it pages down 29 documents regardless if the user can see them or not.
I have looked through a few lotus knowledge bases and see no mention of this problem. I also do not see this problem listed in this forum. I assume that since I never noticed this before, it is new with R6… although it was noticed by a couple of developers who are more observant than I am, so it is possible that I just never noticed it in R5.
So, I know this is a problem. Does anyone know any clever ideas on how to work-around this problem?
Does anyone know how to determine if Lotus is aware of this bug (other than calling a tech support guy who will take a couple days to even admit he can recreate the issue – and then another couple of days to tell me that it is a bug and may be worked on sometime in the next few years)?
Thanks for any ideas.