It maybe seems a trivial question, but how to design the problem to SQL?
I have a document containing tasks inside.
Each document is per day and each task the have description, complete properties.
I want to be able to provide a page to the user where he can see the tasks of the document and be able to mark if it's complete.
Also, I want to provide the user the ability to edit/add or delete tasks without impacting the previous documents.
Of course, I start from the basic create a tasks table and docs table and docs_tasks for the relationship, but how to design the edit/add or delete without impact the previous docs (for search and archive purposes)?
Related
I am currently working on a client project requires the admins to setup some daily recurring tasks for users of the system. to take temperature measurements of food
the user then fill out the task ( usually around 5 fields of data ) and if the temperatures validates the system creates a "report" on that given task. and it disappears from the users overview. the task is just not showen cause the same task is gonna pop up gain later on the week etc.
then today it stroke me that if a admin changes the control temperature values on a task it will reflect on all filled out tasks cause of my relations. and that is a no go i have to be able to change the values (they are laws regulated) and not affect the already completed reports.
What is a good approach for this ? my current one is to have the report table include all the nessaary data fields from a task and replicate em over so i can recreated the report based on the task at that give time.
or should i make the values not ediable after they are created and tell the administrators to disable the task and create a new one ? that way i allways have old task ids i can fetch values from
Hope i make sens :) ells ill be happy to explain more and make some diagrams.
This is going to be vague, hopefully not annoyingly so. I know very little about SharePoint, but I'm asking for someone who's more knowledgable but is under lots of crippling pressure. Unfortunately I'm going to be held responsible for the project (it's due before Christmas!!), so I need to see what I can figure out on my own to help out. Please allow my desperation and helplessness to excuse any problems with this question.
We've created an InfoPath form that generates xml files that will be uploaded to SharePoint. The data from these files will be aggregated and used to generate reports. The biggest issue is that the users will be spread out over three locations, and the info generated from each location needs to be firewalled from the others. But we need the xml files from all three locations to go to the same place in order to make the aggregation feasible with minimal manual work.
I've read something about SharePoint groups (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc262778%28v=office.14%29.aspx) and figured that might be the way of doing it, so long as 1) the xml documents could all go to the same library/repository and 2) that shared repository would only show each group their own documents. For at least two users we also need a master view that shows all of the documents regardless of the group that created them.
That's the main question. Ultimately we'll also need a similar way of storing the generated reports (tables and charts) to the creators of the xml files AND a set of users at each location who won't be able to view or create those xml files. But first things first, I guess.
Is this possible and feasible? Any hints/links that could get us started down this path?
I think in your case the best option is to create a folder for each group, and set permissions on them to allow just the specific group of users to access that folder. The same with a separate library for reports. Then, you'd just setup a list view that flattens the folder hierarchy to view all items at once.
You could also set per-document permission programmatically in an event receiver, however, there's a pretty low limit (search for ACL) on the number of unique access control lists per library (it's 50.000 actually). So depending on the number of XMLs you are going to manage you may reach this limit.
In one of the lotus notes db, too frequent replication/save conflicts are caused reason being a scheduled agent and any user working on the document at the same time.
is there any way to avoid this.
Thanks,
H.P.
Several options in addition to merging conflicts:
Change the schedule The best way to avoid it is to have your scheduled agents running at times when users are not likely to be accessing the system. If the LastContact field on a Client document is updated by an agent every hour as it checks all Contact documents, maybe the agent should run overnight instead.
Run the agent on user action It may also be the case that the agent shouldn't be running on a schedule, but should be running when the user takes some action. For example, run the agent to update the Client document when the user saves the supporting Contact document.
Break the form into smaller bits A third thing to consider is redesigning your form so that not every piece of data is on a main form. For example, if comments on recent contacts with a client are currently held in a field on the Client document, you might change the design to have a separate ClientMeeting form from which the comments on the meeting are displayed in an embedded view or computed text (or designed using Xpages).
Despite the fact that I am a developer, I think rep/saves are far more often the result of design decisions than anything else.
You can use the Conflict Handling option on the form(s) in question and select either Merge Conflicts or Merge/No Conflicts in order to have Notes handle merging of edit conflicts.
From the Help database:
At the "Conflict Handling" section of the Form Info tab, choose one of the following options for the form:
Create Conflicts -- Creates conflicts so that a replication conflict appears as a response document to the main document. The main document is selected based on the time and date of the changes and an internal document sequence number.
Merge Conflicts -- If a replication conflict occurs, saves the edits to each field in a single document. However, if two users edit the same field in the same document, Notes saves one document as a main document and the other document as a response document marked as a replication conflict. The main document is selected based on the criteria listed in the bullet above.
Merge/No Conflicts -- If replication occurs, saves the edits to each field in a single document. If two users edit the same field in the same document, Notes selects the field from the main document, based on time and date, and an internal document sequence number. No conflict document is generated, instead conflicting documents are merged into a single document at the field level.
Do Not Create Conflicts -- No merge occurs. IBM® Lotus® Domino(TM) simply chooses one document over another. The other document is lost.
In later versions of Notes there is the concept of document locking, and used properly that can prevent conflicts (but also add complexity).
Usually most conflicts can be avoided by planning to run the agents late at night when users aren't on the system. If that's not an option, then locking may be the best solution. If the conflicts aren't too many, you might benefit from adding a view filtered to show only conflicts, which would make findind and resolving them easier.
IMHO, the best answer to conflicts between users and agents is to make sure that they are operating on different documents. I.e., there are two documents with a common key. They can be parent and child if it would be convenient to show them that way in a view, but they don't have to be. Just call them DocA and DocB for the purposes of this discussion.
DocA is read and updated by users. When a user is viewing DocA, computed field formulas can pull information from DocB via DbLookup or GetDocField. Users never update DocB.
DocB, on the other hand, is read and updated by agents, but agents only read DocA. They never update them.
If you design your application any other way, then you either have to use locking -- which can create the possibility of not being able to update something when you need to, or accepting the fact that conflicts can happen occasionally and will need to be resolved.
Note that even with this strategy, you can still have conflicts if you have multiple replicas of the database. You can use the 'Conflict Handling' section of the Form properties to help minimize replication conflicts, as per #Per Henrik Lausten's answer, but since you are talking about an existing please also see my comment to his answer for additional info about what you would have to do in order to use this feature.
If this is a mission critical application, consider creating a database with lock-documents. That means, every time a user opens a document, a separate lock-document is created.
Then code the agent to see if lock-documents exist for every document that the agent wants to modify. If it does, skip that document.
Document-close should remove the doc-lock.
The lock-doc should be created on document open, not just read. This way, when a user has the document open in read mode, the agent will not be able to modify as well. This is to prohibit, that the user might change to editmode afterwards and make changes.
If the agent has a long modification time, it should create lock-docs as well.
Actually I am in need of counting the visitors count for a particular document.
I can do it by adding a field, and increasing its value.
But the problem is following.,
I have 10 replication copies in different location. It is being replicated by scheduled manner. So replication conflict is happening because of document count is editing the same document in different location.
I would use an external solution for this. Just search for "visitor count" in your favorite search engine and choose a third party tool. You can then display the count on the page if that is important.
If you need to store the value in the database for some reason, perhaps you could store it as a new doc type that gets added each time (and cleaned up later) to avoid the replication issues.
Otherwise if storing it isn't required consider Google Analytics too.
Also I faced this problem. I can not say that it has a easy solution. Document locking is the only solution that i had found. But the visitor's count is not possible.
It is possible, but not by updating the document. Instead have an AJAX call to an agent or form with parameters on the URL identifying the document being read. This call writes a document into a tracking DB with one or two views and then determines from those views how many reads you have had. The number of reads is the return value of the AJAX form.
This can be written in LS, Java or #Formulas. I would try to do it 100% in #Formulas to make it as efficient as possible.
You can also add logic to exclude reads from the same user or same source IP address.
The tracking database then replicates using the same schedule as the other database.
Daily or Hourly agents can run to create summary documents and delete the detail documents so that you do not exceed the limits for #DBLookup.
If you do not need very nearly real time counts (and that is the best you can get with replicated system like this) you could use the web logs that domino generates by finding the reads in the logs and building the counts in a document per server.
/Newbs
Back in the 90s, we had a client that needed to know that each person had read a document without them clicking to sign or anything.
The initial solution was to add each name to a text field on a separate tracking document. This ran into problems when it got over 32k real fast. Then, one of my colleagues realized you could just have it create a document for each user to record that they'd read it.
Heck, you could have one database used to track all reads for all users of all documents, since one user can only open one document at a time -- each time they open a new document, either add that value to a field or create a field named after the document they've read on their own "reader tracker" document.
Or you could make that a mail-in database, so no worries about replication. Each time they open a document for which you want to track reads, it create a tiny document that has only their name and what document they read which gets mailed into the "read counter database". If you don't care who read it, you have an agent that runs on a schedule that updates the count and deletes the mailed-in documents.
There really are a lot of ways to skin this cat.
I think read somewhere that when a View is requested the "map" is only run across documents that have been added since the last time it was requested? How is this determined? I thought I saw something about a sequence number. Is this something that you can get to? Its not part of the UUID trailing on the _rev field is it?
Any way to force a 'recalc' of the entire View (across all records)?
The section about View Indexes in the Technical Overview is a great guide to this.
The view builder uses the database sequence ID to determine if the view group is fully up-to-date with the database. If not, the view engine examines the all database documents (in packed sequential order) changed since the last refresh. Documents are read in the order they occur in the disk file, reducing the frequency and cost of disk head seeks.
As documents are examined, their previous row values are removed from the view indexes, if they exist. If the document is selected by a view function, the function results are inserted into the view as a new row.
CouchDB first checks to see if anything has changed in the entire database using a sequence id (that gets updated whenever there's a change to any document in the database). If something has changed it goes looking for those documents and runs the map function on them.
There really shouldn't be any need to rebuild/regenerate your views since it will incrementally refresh as you modify your documents (note that it won't update the view until you use it though). With hat said one way (and I'm sure there's a better way) would be to remove the design document describing the view and insert it again seeing as a design document is no different (almost) from a normal document.