I've made a custom entity that will work as an data modification audit (any entity modified will trigger creating an instance of this entity). So far I have the plugin working fine (tracking old and new versions of properties changed).
I'd like to also keep track of what entity this is related to. At first I added a N:1 from DataHistory to Task (eg.) and I can indeed link back to the original task (via a "new_tasksid" attribute I added to DataHistory).
The problem is every entity I want to log will need a separate attribute id (and an additional entry in the form!)
Looking at how phone, task, etc utilize a "regardingobjectid", this is what I should do. Unfortunately, when I try to add a "dataobjectid" and map it to eg Task and PhoneCall, it complains (on the second save), that the reference needs to be unique. How does the CRM get around this and can I emulate it?
You could create your generic "dataobjectid" field, but make it a text field and store the guid of the object there. You would lose the native grids for looking at the audit records, and you wouldn't be able to join these entities through advanced find, fetch or query expressions, but if that's not important, then you can whip up an ASPX page that displays the audit logs for that record in whatever format you choose and avoid making new relationships for every entity you want to audit.
CRM has a special lookup type that can lookup to many entity types. That functionality isn't available to us customizers, unfortunately. Your best bet is to add each relationship that could be regarding and hide the lookups that aren't in use for this particular entity.
Related
I am in the process of modifying forms to account for V9 of Dynamics which is being rolled out currently.
Our environment is using Dialogs but these are being deprecated with V9 which means we have to prepare the forms to be used instead of these Dialogs.
Due to how fragmented our solution is the data is all over the place in different entities and can all be written too at different times.
Is it possible to have multiple entities/records on the same form which are all editable? This way I can run rules to hide and show as people edit specific fields.
From what I can identify, there is no "true" way to achieve this. However, if there are entities which are linked via a relationship within the solution, it is possible to add the "Party List" type field to the form and this will act as the link between the two entities. When you go to search for an existing record within the related entity, there is a new button which allows you too create a new record of that entity which directly associated with the form you were working on initially.
We do have editable subgrids. Add the subgrids of related entities & allow users to edit the related records in main record form at one shot.
I am working on a MVC3 code first web application and after I showed the first version to my bosses, they suggested they will need a 'spare' (spare like in something that's not yet defined and we will use it just in case we will need it) attribute in the Employee model.
My intention is to find a way to give them the ability to add as many attributes to the models as they will need. Obviously I don't want them to get their hands on the code and modify it, then deploy it again (I know I didn't mention about the database, that will be another problem). I want a solution that has the ability to add new attributes 'on the fly'.
Do any of you had similar requests and if you had what solution did you find/implement?
I haven't had such a request, but I can imagine a way to get what you want.
I assume you use the Entity Framework, because of your tag.
Let's say we have a class Employee that we want to be extendable. We can give this class a dictionary of strings where the key-type is string, too. Then you can easily add more properties to every employee.
For saving this structure to the database you would need two tables. One that holds the employees and one that holds the properties. Where the properties-table has a foreign-key targeting the employee-table.
Or as suggested in this Q&A (EF Code First - Map Dictionary or custom type as an nvarchar): you can save the contents of the dictionary as XML in one column of the employee table.
This is only one suggestion and it would be nice to know how you solved this.
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'm working a custom workflow activity and would like to allow the user to select one of the entities available from within the workflow. This would be like selecting the entity in an update status activity. The list would include the primary entity, all of its associated parent entities, and any entities created within the workflow (e.g. if I created a task with the create activity, that task would be in the list).
Is there some way to do this?
Thanks!
Workflow has major shortcomings when it comes to things like this. You can add metadata to dependencies ( [CrmInput] and [CrmReferenceTarget("account")] ), but you'll need a property per entity you intend to support. I don't know if you could include multiple CrmReferenceTarget tags per property.
So even if you go through setting up a workflow activity with every lookup (which will require a code change for every new entity), you still have to take the care to set the right lookup in your code - and choose from ALL (not filtered based on your entity). Which is clearly not what you want.
I have a custom entity in Microsoft CRM (4.0). The user has to input records however usually they have a batch of 20+ records that are almost the same apart from 2 or 3 fields which need changing. I know I need to write some custom code to enable this functionally. However can anyone recommend any methods to do this.
Ideally there should be a button that will save and create a copy as a new entity.
My Current way of thinking is to pass all the details as part of the URL and use javascript to strip them out on the page load event. Any ideas welcome.
Thanks
Luke
I found the answer here:
http://mscrm4ever.blogspot.com/2008/06/cloning-entity-using-javascript.html
I've used it and it appears to work well.
Since there are numerous fields, but only certain fields values are different, then i am thinking to set the default value to all the fields, so that users just need to alter those values when needed.
In my approach, i will hook a javascript function on load of the form data entry screen and use XmlHttp approach/Ajax approach to hook to the custom web service to pull/retrieve the default values of each fields. Or you can set those values at the javascript function itself, but the drawback of this, it's difficult to customize later. So i will choose the approach to hook to the custom web service and retrieve those value from some application parameter entity.
Your idea of providing a "clone" button is also a great idea, which means that it will duplicate all the attributes of the previous record, into a new record, so that it will save time for data entry person to customize the different value
EDIT
Since you would enter records in batch mode, how about customizing .ASPX screen to enter records. By customizing through .ASPX screen, you can use a tab , so that users can browse through tabs, to customize the value/attribute of each record.
There will be a "save" button as well as "clone" button to clone some common attribute or value.
I would create a custom web service that would accept the entity type and the ID of the record I'm cloning. Your "Save and Clone" button would call the service, and the service would handle the details of retrieving the current record and deciding which fields to set on the new record. The service creates the record, and sends the Guid of the record back to your button, which then opens up the newly created record.
This way, you avoid the messiness of setting/getting values in JavaScript and tying which fields to set/retrieve directly to your OnLoads, as well as avoiding the possibility of query string that's too long.
The service could easily be sufficiently generalized so that all you'd have to do is add your button to any entity, and it would work, assuming you'd set up your service to handle that particular entity.
One possible downside is that since the clone record button would actually create the record, the user would be forced to delete the cloned record if they decided they didn't want to clone the record after all.