I'm trying to find a way to save a new object if one like it doesn't already exist with a specified custom ID.
I basically need to refresh a whole bunch of data every day but each item has its own ID set somewhere else (so not a parse objectId). I therefore can't use something like the standard save function as it'll just make a new record every time.
I've thought of trying to set the objectId of an object when its first created in the DB but I can't seem to do that... (Half expected this).
I've also thought of doing the obvious - checking if an object exists using a normal query but with a few thousand objects to compare, this will be very inefficient.
Any suggestions?
Maybe there is a save function or variation where its kind of "save or create depending if an object exists with this value in this field" :)
Thank you!
PS. I'm writing this within a Cloud Job - so JavaScript
Related
I'm curious what the difference is between overriding a table's modifiedField method versus overriding the update method.
In our case, we are working on switching the field datatype on a table. Since we cannot just change the data type of the field, we make a second field, and copy the information from the first into the second. Eventually, we update all the UI elements (forms and reports namely) to point to the new field, and then remove the old field. To help with copying the information from one field to another, we have been overriding the update method on the table to copy the value from the first field to the second.
I know this would probably be easier to maintain using the modifiedField method, but I'm curious if there are any significant differences (performance, missed updates, etc) by using the update method instead.
The main difference is that the code in modifiedField method is executed without writing into the Database. This way you can change the value of field2, but if a user close the form without saving the record then no updates will be in the DB. While using an update method you certainly write the changes.
As far as I know, all QuickBase API calls are called using the following syntax: http://<quickbase>/db/<dbid>?
Is there a way to get the dbid field without navigating to that database table within QuickBase?
If the above is not possible, would anyone recommend anything other than creating another table that stores the IDs of the tables you want?
With the latter method, I believe I would only need to store one dbid and could pull down the rest (which I believe would still need to be user entered, but would be better than requiring them to change the code).
Thanks for the help!
API_GetSchema will return the list of dbids.
https://www.quickbase.com/db/<yourApplicationId>?act=API_GetSchema&apptoken=<yourApplicationTokenId>&fmt=flat
I have an custom entity which needs to have a case number for an XRM Application, can I generate a case number from the Service -> Case.
If this is not possible, how can I do this with a plugin, I've looked at the crmnumbering.codeplex.com but this doesn't support 2011, anybody outthere have a solution or should I rewrite it myself?
thanks
I've ran into this same type of issue (I need a custom # for an entity). Here's how you can do it:
Create an Entity called "Counter"
Add a field called "new_customnumber", make it a string or a number depending on what you want
Create a new record for that entity with whatever you want in the new_customnumber field (let's say "10000")
Create a plugin (EntityNumberGenerator) that goes out and grabs that record (you'll probably want to set the security on this record/entity really tight so no one can mess with the numbers)
On Create of the "custom entity" fire the plugin. Grab the value in new_customnumber save it to the "custom entity" (let's say in a "case" field) increment the new_customnumber and save it to the Counter entity.
Warning, I'm not sure how this is with concurrency. Meaning I'm not sure if 2 custom entities being created at the same time can grab the same number (I haven't ran into an issue yet). I haven't figured out a way to "lock" a field I've retrieved in a plugin (I'm not sure it's possible).
You will be unable to create a custom number for custom entities from the normal area you set a case number.
Look at the CRM2011sdk\sdk\samplecode\cs\plug-ins\accountnumberplugin.cs plugin. It's really similar to what you want.
Ry
I haven't seen one for 2011 yet. Probably easiest to write it yourself.
I've always created a database with a table with a single column which is an IDENTITY column. Write an SP to insert, save the IDENTITY value to a variable, and DELETE the row all within a transaction. Return the variable. Makes for a quick and easy plug-in and this takes care of any concurrency issues.
The performance is fast and the impact to your SQL server is minimal.
I need to convert a Session object to an IOrderedQueryable and came up blank. I've thought of creating a wrapper, but its not working properly. Basically, I am pulling a Linq query and would like to store it so that I don't have to pull it each time I visit. There are up to 7-10 parameters per user so it's not something that's great for caching.
I can simply cast my Session object as an IOrderedQueryable like:
(IOrderedQueryable<T>)Session["myObject"];
It seems you want to store the data returned by the linq query, if that's the case you need to make it grab the data i.e. by using .ToList() and storing that.
I am using Sql tables without rowversion or timestamp. However, I need to use Linq to update certain values in the table. Since Linq cannot know which values to update, I am using a second DataContext to retrieve the current object from database and use both the database and the actual object as Input for the Attach method like so:
Public Sub SaveCustomer(ByVal cust As Customer)
Using dc As New AppDataContext()
If (cust.Id > 0) Then
Dim tempCust As Customer = Nothing
Using dc2 As New AppDataContext()
tempCust = dc2.Customers.Single(Function(c) c.Id = cust.Id)
End Using
dc.Customers.Attach(cust, tempCust)
Else
dc.Customers.InsertOnSubmit(cust)
End If
dc.SubmitChanges()
End Using
End Sub
While this does work, I have a problem though: I am also using StoredProcedures to update some fields of Customer at certain times. Now imagine the following workflow:
Get customer from database
Set a customer field to a new value
Use a stored procedure to update another customer field
Call SaveCustomer
What happens now, is, that the SaveCustomer method retrieves the current object from the database which does not contain the value set in code, but DOES contain the value set by the stored procedure. When attaching this with the actual object and then submit, it will update the value set in code also in the database and ... tadaaaa... set the other one to NULL, since the actual object does not contain the changed made by the stored procedure.
Was that understandable?
Is there any best practice to solve this problem?
If you make changes behind the back of the ORM, and don't use concurrency checking - then you are going to have problems. You don't show what you did in step "3", but IMO you should update the object model to reflect these changes, perhaps using OUTPUT TSQL paramaters. Or; stick to object-oriented.
Of course, doing anything without concurrency checking is a good way to lose data - so my preferred option is simply "add a rowversion". Otherwise, you could perhaps read the updated object out and merge things... somehow guessing what the right data is...
If you're going to disconnect your object from one context and use another one for the update, you need to either retain the original object, use a row version, or implement some sort of hashing routine in your database and retain the hash as part of your object. Of these, I highly recommend the Rowversion option as well. Using the current value as the original value like you are trying to do is only asking for concurrency problems.