In a normal job, I can specify a number in the $tries variable. How do I specify the number of tries for Mail/Notification Classes? I want there to be only one try for emails.
Related
I am trying to count a specific barcode value from Project.Document_SeparateCurrentPage and use it in BatchClose to compare if the count is greater than 1 and if it is >1 then send the batch to a specific queue with specific priority. I used a global variable in KTM Project Script to hold the count value which was initialized to 0 in Batch open. It worked fine until unit testing. But our automation team found that out of 20 similar batches, few batches were sent to the queue where the batch should go only if the count satisfies the greater than one condition, though they used only one barcode.
I googled and found that KTM Server script events do not allow to use shared information in different processes(https://docshield.kofax.com/KTM/en_US/6.4.0-uuxag78yhr/help/SCRIPT/ScriptDocumentation/c_ServerScriptEvents.html). Then I tried to use a batch field to hold the barcode count but unable to update its value from Project.Document_SeparateCurrentPage function using pXRootFolder.Fields.ItemByName("BatchFieldName").Text = "GreaterThanOne". The logs show that the batch reads the first page three times and then errors out.
Any links would help. Thanks in advance.
As you mentioned, the different phases of batch/document processing can execute in different processes, so global variables initialized in one event won’t necessarily be available in others. Ideally you should only use global variables if their content can be set from Application_InitializeScript or Application_InitializeBatch, because these events occur in each separate process. As you’ve found out, you shouldn’t use a global variable for your use case, because Document_SeparateCurrentPage and Batch_Close for one batch may occur in different processes, just as the same process will likely execute those events for multiple batches.
Also, you cannot set batch fields from document level events for a related reason: any number of separate processes could be processing documents of a batch in parallel, so batch level data is read-only to document events. It is a bit unintuitive, but separation is a document level event even though it seems like it is acting on the whole batch. (The three times you saw is just an error retry mechanism.)
If it meets your needs, the simplest answer might be to use a barcode locator as part of normal extraction (not just separation), and assign to a field if needed. While you cannot set batch fields from document events, you can read document data from batch events. So instead of trying to track something like a count over the course of document events, just make sure whatever data you need is saved at a document level. Then in a Batch_Close you can iterate the documents and count/calculate whatever you need. (In your case maybe the number of locator alternatives for the barcode locator, across each document.)
How to handle the remove flight booking in webtours? It came to my mind that if I wanna run the test with 3 virtual users and how they supposed to delete the booking if the information down here (refer below) are unique for each virtual user? Does any of these variables below need to be parameterized or need to apply correlation?
If there are multiple flight id to be deleted, we can create a CSV file having those ids
and use a while loop controller to delete each of them.
You may refer -
https://guide.blazemeter.com/hc/en-us/articles/206733689-Using-CSV-DATA-SET-CONFIG
https://www.blazemeter.com/blog/using-while-controller-jmeter
As you said, it will differ for a different user, you can store each value from the response of each user(extract value using regex) and pass them in delete call.
reference link - https://guide.blazemeter.com/hc/en-us/articles/207421325-Using-RegEx-Regular-Expression-Extractor-with-JMeter-Using-RegEx-(Regular-Expression-Extractor)-with-JMeter
I don't know what "webtours" is, however there is one "golden" rule: each and every parameter which is dynamic needs to be correlated.
If you don't have any idea regarding which ones are dynamic - record the same action one more time using JMeter's HTTP(S) Test Script Recorder and compare the generated requests, parameter values (or even names) which differ needs to be correlated.
Another approach is to inspect the previous response(s) using View Results Tree listener and look if the data is present there
Check out Advanced Load Testing Scenarios with JMeter: Part 1 - Correlations article for more information and example implementation
I'm currently learning ABAP and trying to make an enhancement but have broken down in confusion on how to go about building on top of existing code. I have a program that runs periodically via a background job that disables user accounts X amount of days (in this case 90 days of inactive usage based on USR02~TRDAT).
I want to add an enhancement to notify the User via their email address (result of usr02~bname to match usr21~bname to pass the usr21~persnumber and usr21~addrnumber to adr6 which will point to the adr6~smtp_addr of the user, providing the usr02~bname -> adr6~smtp_addr relationship) based on their last logon date being 30, 15, 7, 5, 3, and 1 day away from the 90 day inactivity threshold with a link to the SAP system to help them reactivate the account with ease.
I'm beginning to think that an enhancement might not be a good idea but rather create a new program and schedule the background job daily. Any guidance or information would be greatly appreciated...
Extract
CLASS cl_inactive_users_reader DEFINITION.
PUBLIC SECTION.
TYPES:
BEGIN OF ts_inactive_user,
user_name TYPE syst_uname,
days_of_inactivity TYPE int1,
END OF ts_inactive_user.
TYPES tt_inactive_users TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF ts_inactive_user WITH EMPTY KEY.
CLASS-METHODS read_inactive_users
IMPORTING
min_days_of_inactivity TYPE int1
RETURNING
VALUE(result) TYPE tt_inactive_users.
ENDCLASS.
Then refactor
REPORT block_inactive_users.
DATA(inactive_users) = cl_inactive_users_readers=>read_inactive_users( 90 ).
LOOP AT inactive_users INTO DATA(inactive_user).
" block user
ENDLOOP.
And add
REPORT warn_inactive_users.
DATA(inactive_users) = cl_inactive_users_readers=>read_inactive_users( 60 ).
LOOP AT inactive_users INTO DATA(inactive_user).
CASE inactive_user-days_of_inactivity.
" choose urgency
ENDCASE.
" send e-mail
ENDLOOP.
and run both reports daily.
Don't create a big ball of mud by squeezing new features into existing code.
From SAP wiki:
The enhancement concept allows you to add your own functionality to SAP's standard business applications without having to modify the original applications. To modify the standard SAP behavior as per customer requirements, we can use enhancement framework.
As per your description, it doesn't sound like a use case for an enhancement. It isn't an intervention in an existing process. The original process and your new requirement are two different processes with some mutual logical part - selection of days of inactivity of users. The two shouldn't rely on each other.
Structurally I think it is best to have a separate program for computing which e-mails need to be sent and when, and a separate program for actually sending them.
I would copy your original program to a new one, and modify it a little bit so that instead of disabling a user, it records into some table for each user: 1) an e-mail 2) a date when to send 3) how many days left (30, 15, 7, etc) 4) status if the e-mail was sent or not. Initially you can even have multiple such jobs for each period (30, 15, 7 etc) and pass it as a parameter (which you use inside instead of 90).
This program you run daily as a job and it populates that table with e-mail "tasks" of what needs to be sent today. It just adds new lines, so lines from yesterday should stay in there.
The 2nd program should just read that table and send actual e-mails and update the statuses. You run that program daily as well.
This way you have:
overview: just check the table to see what's going on
control: if the e-mailer dies or hangs, you can restart it and it will continue where it left off; with statuses you avoid sending duplicate mails
you can make sure that you don't send outdated e-mails if in your mailer script you ignore all tasks older than say 2 days
I want to clarify your confusion about the use of enhancements:
You would want to use enhancements in terms of 'something' happens or is going to happen in the system and you would want to change this standard way.
That something, let's call it event or process could be for example an order is placed, a certain user is logging onto the system or a material has been or is going to be changed.
The change could be notifying another system of an order or checking the logged on user with additional checks for example his GUI version and warn him/her if not up-to-date.
Ask yourself, what process on the system does the execution of your program or code depend on. Does anything need to happen before the program is executed? No, only elapsing time.
Even if you had found an enhancement, you would want to use. If this process using the enhancement would not be run in 90 days, your mails would not be sent, because the enhancement would never been called.
edit: That being said, supposing you mean by enhancement 'building on your existing program' instead of 'creating a new one' would be absolutely not the right terminology for enhancement in the sap universe.
I would extend the functionality of your existing program, since you already compute how many days are left and you would have only one job to maintain.
I am looking to see if its possible to have one job that runs different schedules, with the catch being one of the schedules needs to pass in a parameter.
I have an executable that will run some functionality when there is no parameter, but if there is a parameter present it will run some additional logic.
Setting up my job I created a schedule (every 15 minutes), Operating system (CmdExec)
runApplication.exe
For the other schedule I would like it to be once per day however the executable would need to be: runApplication.exe "1"
I dont think I can create a different step with a separate schedule, or can I?
Anyone have any ideas on how to achieve this without having two separate jobs?
There's no need for 2 jobs. What you can do is update your script so the result of your job (your parameter) is stored in a table. Then update your secondary logic to reference that table. If there's a value of parameter, then run your secondary logic. All in one script. If there's no value in that parameter, then have your secondary logic to return a 0 or not run at all.
Just make sure you either truncate the entire reference parameter table every run or you store a date in there so you know which one to reference.
Good luck.
I want make the program more simple, so I use table's field name as name in input html,
And then I can save some time for mapping input name to database field name
But, are there security risks if user know my field name?
(Suppose SQL injection have handled in the server program)
Update 1:
I am not going to around the field name validation
I just don't want to do something like this
$uid=$_POST['user_id'];
$ufname=$_POST['user_first_name'];
$ulname=$_POST['user_last_name'];
If I do this
$user_id=$_POST['user_id'];
$user_first_name=$_POST['user_first_name'];
$user_first_name=$_POST['user_last_name'];
I can save coding time, and don't need to think two names for one data, and reduce bug.
and I can also do something like this to save more time as I just type the name once.
$validField=array("user_id","user_first_name","user_last_name");
foreach ($validField as $field) {
$orm[$field]=$field;
}
This can also valid the field name
so I think that hacks are no way to get my unpublished fields
I can save some time for mapping input name to database field name.
If you save time mapping input names to database field names, you would need to spend a roughly equivalent time validating that the field names are, in fact, among the fields that the users can access in your database. There is no way around this validation, because otherwise your DB is exposed to hacks that try and get your unpublished fields, such as IDs and hashes. This is pretty bad, so you would need to build that validation layer.
On the other hand, if you do a mapping from meaningless IDs to meaningful, then you do not need validation, because it is your program that produced the meaningful IDs. Essentially, the validation step is built into the process.