Hope some1 can help.
I copied this grid from another WP and seems like its not working. No clue why. Checked all I can but it doesnt work. In the other WP it works properly with another grids.
Any ideas?
Check the columns in the new grid. Does it have the same attributes than the source grid?
If you copied them from a different KB, it is highly possible that the attributes does not keep the same...
The specifier tries to find to which table the attributes belong. Don't think 'it should work because I copied it from a working wkp' , instead think 'some attribute is messing the specification' and take one by one out until it works, check if the obtained table is the desired one or another one. If it is the desired one, then the last attribute you withdrew is the one messing up the specification process. If it is another table than the desired one, try to withdraw from the grid the remaining attributes and put the ones you withdrew before back into the grid, and repeat the process. At some point you will understand which one is messing up. Also keep in mind that there might be other places with attributes, such as in the 'Load Event', they also influence the process.
It means that Genexus can not resolve the base table, you may be using (or referencing) attributes of different transactions and genexus can not resolve the relationship between them.
I would like to ask for a help with Salesforce. The official Salesforce communities website encounters a login bug, so I thought I would ask here, as always I got the positive reception here.
I would like to create the rule which will make unable to click the Potential Duplicate field if Left Organization is already marked as True. Could anyone help me to create such rule?
Create a validation rule that checks in the formula:
AND (
NOT( ISBLANK(potential_duplicate_field__c),
Left_Organization__c
)
assuming potential_duplicate_field__c is a text or some such and Left_Organization__c is a check box.
Ok. I have found the solution meanwhile. If anyone looks for the answer for similar case this code will help
AND(Left_Organization__c=TRUE,Potential_Duplicate__c=TRUE)
I am sometimes having conflicts when merging two branches using subversion.
This is not a real problem, as I just have to look at the actual code and solve them one after the other.
But I usually don't want to solve them during the merge process, as tortoise wants me to do and solve them afterwards.
Thing is our codebase is quite huge, and it takes a lot of times for the icons to refresh which makes it quite difficult to track down conflicts quickly.
So what is the best/easiest way to have some kind of listing of all the current conflicts in a repository ?
Any idea is welcome, I can also use another tool or the command line as soon as the solution is efficient.
Thx!
svn status will help you to see postponed merge-conflicts (which also block possibility to commit)
Extraction from svn help status
The first seven columns in the output are each one character wide:
First column: Says if item was added, deleted, or otherwise changed
...
'C' Conflicted
Second column: Modifications of a file's or directory's properties
...
'C' Conflicted
Seventh column: Whether the item is the victim of a tree conflict
...
'C' tree-Conflicted
Ok, here is what I found to get around :
In whatever repo you know have conflicts, you can use
right click->Tortoise SVN->Resolved.
This will list all conflicts in the repo, taken recursively all subfolders too.
Find a target that is big enough for you, and resolve your conflicts till the list is empty.
You can even resolve them directly within the window is you wanna go faster.
Group resolve also works for elements in the same folder that have the same kind of conflict.
Hope this helps someone :)
Select a method
Selection http://synapticmishap.co.uk/aSO/SelectionGrab.jpg
Edit > Refactor...
Select "Move Up"
I get the following error a lot.
Refactoring Error http://synapticmishap.co.uk/aSO/RefactoringError.jpg
Any ideas on how I can get Xcode to, well, do its job?
Solution Summary
Option 2 that Peter suggests below did the trick. I can't believe that
a) I didn't try this Smacks head
and
b)
Xcode couldn't find a sane way of saying "Don't select the whole method!"
Two possibilities:
Maybe that blank line at the start is screwing it up? Try starting the selection at the -/+.
Try right-clicking the first segment of the selector and Refactoring that.
I tried refactoring a class (implementation) after I renamed the containing file manually and got the same error. Once I renamed the file back to its original name I was able to refactor.
Very simple question: should a dropdown list be used to populate state abbreviations? From my experience, I think most e-commerce sites do this so I would expect that it's acceptable. However, Jakob Nielsen has something to say about this.
I think I disagree; I use the tab key then type the first letter of my state. Heck, even if it wasn't the first entry, I've done this enough times, I would hit the letter repeatedly and get to what I need. I never need the scroll wheel or mouse.
Is there any additional concrete guidance out there on this particular question?
I think this will become less of an issue now that most modern browsers scroll the drop down lists based on each consecutive letter you type, not just reading the first letter as they once did. So, If you type N-Y, the drop down list will scroll directly to NY and you do not have to hit N a bunch of times.
Since a state is a two letter abbreviation, I wouldn't put a drop downlist, I would put a textbox, but I would validate it using AJAX or Javascript to warn the user about an error, right after he entered something wrong.
DropDown / Auto-completion (in my opinion) is useful when the data to enter is longer / more error-prone.
If you insist on using auto-completion or dropdown, you should put long state names, not just the abbrev.
I don't know about concrete guidance, but one alternative I would consider is using an autocomplete text box that forces you to choose from one of the available choices. I agree that a 50-item drop down list is too long and using autocomplete with enforced choice accomplishes the same purpose -- consistent data -- and has the advantage that it is much easier for the user to navigate. If you don't want to limit the choices to just US states you could drop the enforced choice and just let the autocomplete work as a suggestion with the user being able to enter free-form input.
EDIT: As #Martin suggests, I would probably have the autocomplete show the full state name, even if it only entered the abbreviation. This would solve issues of people getting the abbreviation wrong as well, though you could do the same thing in a drop down -- display the name with the abbreviation as the value.
I was going to post NYSystemsAnalyst's answer, but he beat me. I will instead add a caveat... If you use a dropdown list, it must be complete. Do not forget the obvious DC, or the less common but plausible PR or AE/AA/AP, or the rather improbable but still valid AS, FM, MH, MP, PW, and VI.
The official list
I think it depends on if you are asking a user to enter their own address or someone else's address (ship to address). Everyone knows their own state abbreviation, but may know all the state abbreviations.
So for entering your own address a textbox is the quickest and easiest way, but if you are asking the user to potentially enter someone else's address a drop down is probably best.
Of course, if you site has a combination of both types of address, you want your UI to be consistent and use the drop down for both. Also, if you are using a drop down, I would suggest using the state abbreviation and name (AZ - Arizona) when the drop down is expanded (but just show the abbreviation when it is collapsed).
I'm willing to bet that half the users of online e-commerce sites don't know the abbreviations for the states. Think if you're shipping a gift to someone and you can't remember whether its MS, MO or MI. Dropdowns are fine.
I've never had an issue with state drop down boxes (and this is from someone routinely at the bottom in West Virginia). I've gotten into the habit of just tabbing and pressing W and then it will either recognize the "E" and give me the correct state, or it will not recognize the "E" and then I have to hit the down key once or twice (depending on sort order) to get the proper state.
So all in all I am looking at 5 key presses max to get to my state. I don't think it's that bad.
How about a textbox with validation, and a drop-down list if the state abbreviation is invalid?