There is custom field "Lock Flag" in Account BC, namely in S_ORG_EXT_X table. This field is made available in Opportunity BC using join to above table. The join specification is as follows: Opportunity.Account Id = Account.Id. Account Id is always populated when creating new opportunity. The requirement is that for newly created records in Opportunity BC if "Lock Flag" is equal to 'Y', then we should not allow to create the record and we should show custom error message.
My initial proposal was to use a Runtime Event that is calling Data Validation Manager business service where validation rule is evaluated and error message shown. Assuming that we have to decide whether to write record or not, the logic should be placed in PreWriteRecord event handler as long as WriteRecord have row already commited to database.
The main problem was how to determine if it is new record or updated one. We have WriteRecordNew and WriteRecordUpdated runtime events but they are fired after record is actually written so it doesn't prevent user from saving record. My next approach was to use eScript: write custom code in BusComp_PreWriteRecord server script and call BC's method IsNewRecordPending to determine if it is new record, then check the flag and show error message if needed.
But unfortunately I am faced with another problem. That joined field "Lock Flag" is not populated for newly created opportunity records. Remember we are talking about BC Opportunity and field is placed in S_ORG_EXT_X table. When we create new opportunity we pick account that it belongs to. So it reproduceable: OpportunityBC.GetFieldValue("Lock Flag") returns null for newly created record and returns correct value for the records that was saved previously. For newly created opportunities we have to re-query BC to see "Lock Flag" populated. I have found several documents including Oracle's recomendation to use PreDefaultValue property if we want to display joined field value immediately after record creation. The most suitable expression that I've found was Parent: BCName.FieldName but it is not the case, because active BO is Opportunity and Opportunity BC is the primary one.
Thanks for your patience if you read up to here and finally come my questions:
Is there any way to handle PreWrite event and determine if it is new record or not, without using eScript and BC.IsNewRecordPending method?
How to get value of joined field for newly created record especially in PreWriteRecord event handler?
It is Siebel 8.1
UPDATE: I have found an answer for the first part of my question. Now it seems so simple to me that I am wondering how I haven't done it initially. Here is the solution.
Create Runtime Event triggered on PreWriteRecord. Specify call to Data Validation Manager business service.
In DVM create a ruleset and a rule where condition is
NOT(BCHasRows("Opportunity", "Opportunity", "[Id]='"+[Id]+"'", "AllView"))
That's it. We are searching for record wth the same Row Id. If it is new record there should't be anything in database yet (remember that we are in PreWriteRecord handler) and function returns FALSE. If we are updating some row then we get TRUE. Reversing result with NOT we make DVM raise an error for new records.
As for second part of my question credits goes to #RanjithR who proposed to use PickMap to populate joined field (see below). I have checked that method and it works fine at least when you have appropriate PickMap.
We Siebel developers have used scripting to correctly determine if record is new. One non scripting way you could try is to use RuntimeEvents to set a profileattribute during the BusComp NewRecord event, then check that in the PreWrite event to see if the record is new. However, there is always a chance that user might undo a record, those scenarios are tricky.
Another option, try invokine the BC Method:IsNewRecordPending from RunTime event. I havent tried this.
For the second part of the query, I think you could easily solve your problem using a PickMap.
On Opportunity BC, when your pick Account, just add one more pickmap to pick the Locked flag from Account and set it to the corresponding field on Opportunity BC. When the user picks the Account, he will also pick the lock flag, and your script will work in PreWriteRecord.
May I suggest another solution, again, I haven't tried it.
When new records are created, the field ModificationNumber will be set to 0. Every time you modify it, the ModificationNumber will increment by 1.
Set a DataValidationManager ruleset, trigger it from PreSetFieldValue event of Account field on Opportunity BC. Check for the LockFlag = Y AND (ModificationNumber IS NULL OR ModificationNumber = 0)) and throw error. DVM should throw error when new records are created.
Again, best practices say don't use the ModNumbers. You could set a ProfileAttribute to signal NewRecord, then use that attribute in the DVM. But please remember to clear the value of ProfileAttribute in WriteRecord and UndoRecord.
Let us know how it went !
Related
I am creating an Oracle Form. This form has a field by the name FILE_NUM. There is one more field by the name CLIENT_ID in the form. I have to generate unique FILE_NUM. The process is:
If the CLIENT_ID already exists in the table, get the FILE_NUM and assign it to the new record
ELSE, take the maximum of FILE_NUM, add 1 and assign it to the new record.
This should be taken care when multiple users are working on the form. Hence I did the following:
In Key-Commit trigger, I check if there is a lock on the table.
If the table is locked, I make form wait for 3 second and check again.
If the table is not locked, I am locking the table and inserting the records with the above check.
My query is: is this the right way to do? Is there any other way to generate the FILE_NUM (maybe via trigger?). The problem with key-commit trigger is that if the form closes forcefully, the lock is not removed. This will cause more issues, hence I want to remove the lock feature.
Please advice.
This is the correct way, but indeed the lock can stay in some cases.
If the number doesn't have to follow each other you can use a sequence instead.
This will give you a number when needed and it will be unique.
I have been working on a project. I always followed this idea. Don't send all the data in one call.
Here is an example,
Suppose there is an API to return all the list of students that can be added to test they need to finish.
So, on UI side every student have one button "add" which will show a pop up if the student is already assigned to take the test. Or it will show a pop up he has already finished the test.
I could join many table and send all the data in one api call while fetchig students. Or
I could send the send the students and then on "add" there is another API to make sure the above mentioned conditioned met.
Which approach is better?
Because If I send all the data in one api call, there might be only few students be assigned the test.
Checking if a student is already assigned or not should happen in the backend, not frontend, and also atomically so as to prevent duplicates - either using a database transaction or a unique constraint.
When the Add button is clicked then in any case a backend call will need to be made (to perform the actual Add). If the add failed, the backend can interpret the "unique constraint violation" database error and return a "student is already assigned" message.
For the rest of the question, the rule is simply: don't fetch more data than is required by the UI.
If the Add button is always shown regardless of whether or not the student is already added, there is no need to retrieve this information beforehand.
But it might be useful to give a visual indication of which students are already added, in that case obviously there's no choice but to retrieve and return this information to the UI.
Fortunately GraphQL is precisely the tool for this job - it makes it possible for the UI to request exactly what information is needed for a given page, without having to code each and every possible query by hand.
i am using Spring/Hibernate/ZK. In one tab i get object from DB for editing by user, but second user can open the same tab and the same object for editing . I want to informed second user whit message like "This object is аlready open" and hide buttons for save.Тhus second user can see current data from DB to this object but can`t edint him.Is there a way to check session for this object or another way to do that.
The other answers mostly look at the database, but if all users use the same zk application to access the database, you could keep track of opened objects in the Composer or ViewModel (depending whether you use MVC or MVVM; I'll just call it controller).
Your controller would need a static list of objects that are currently modified. If a user requests to open an object that is not in the list, everything is fine and your controller enables the fields and save button. Otherwise, those are disabled and/or you display a message.
The tricky part is clearing objects from that list. If a user presses the save button, you just remove the object from the list. But what if the user doesn't and just closes the tab or their session just times out? In this case you need a callback, or a mechanism that regularly checks whether the screen is still open.
You could achieve this by adding a zk timer to the tab that pings every now and then and updates the timestamp in your static list (so make it a map). If a new user tries to edit the object, check how old the last timestamp is. If it is old enough (i.e. the previous user saved it or abandoned the screen), allow them to edit it.
Still, you have to think about what to do if a user just keeps the screen open. How long are they allowed to keep the lock on the object? This is an issue in Microsoft Office as well. If multiple users try to open an Excel file from a network location, the first one gets to lock and the others cannot save until that user saves.
You may have additional field which indicates that column is being edited. When first user starts work, the field would be updated. The second user would query object with 'on hold' status and your code would handle this.
Other way - use Hibernate #Version field in your entity. It holds object version which is incremented after every update operation. If second user would save object after first one already saved, it would throw OptimisticLockException which you could handle in your code. More about optimistic and pesimistic locking: Chapter 5. Locking. Related discussions: Hibernate Automatic Versioning and When to use #Version and #Audited in Hibernate?
The best solution is to use Optimistic Concurrency Control with Versioning and when Hibernate throws Concurrency Update issue due to same row is being updated in two transaction then use one of below strategy
First Wins Strategy
Last Wins Strategy
Merge Conflicting Update Strategy
First Wins Strategy is not good solution as it leads to lost update and user will get frustrated that all his work is lost.
By Last Wins Strategy one of user will get error message that you are working on Stale data and start your transaction again . By this way also user can get frustrated due to fact that now again he need to restart operation from beginning but his changes will not lost.
Instead go with Merge conflicting Update Strategy, when Hibernate throws Stale object exception reload screen with new data and user will see updated result and allow him to proceed with latest data. In this user changes will not loss and user will not get error message , just his screen reloads with fresh data and he can decide whether to proceed or not .
You can take example any e-commerce site and you will get one of result of either Last Wins Strategy or Merge Conflicting Update Strategy. Two user can start to by one item but one of user will get message in last screen that item is not stock.
Users are PASTING data into a form in DATASHEET mode, so many records are being entered at the same time. For a specific field called ID, I need to validate the ID against another table. In the sense that the IDs they enter should be already available in another table. Drop down box, selection is not possible.
I also need to return the values that are not VALID
What kind of SQL statment or VBA or validation rule should I use?
"In the sense that the IDs they enter should be already available in another table" - you need an event to trigger the check, so perhaps have them enter into a datasheet on a form rather than a back end table then you can use the various on-changed events, search online for them. In that event simply run a one-to-one query. To return "return the values that are not VALID" you simply need an unmatched query, again, search for info, it's widely documented.
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.