Is it possible to allow an user to view and edit only a subset of all table rows in se16n?
I would like to filter on BUKRS and WERKS.
Is this possible by configuring SAP accordingly?
I know that an AUTHORITY-CHECK on 'S_TABU_NAM' is possible. But AFAIK this reveals the whole table.
You should build a custom transaction - SAP has disallowed editing via se16n in most versions. You could maybe still use the FM SE16N_Interface, but put some controls / authority checks in place before calling it
Related
I am new to using the front end tools/VBA in access, but I am an advanced programmer.
I have a situation where I need to record the date, and method of commute, for a particular individual on a monthly basis. What I have done so far is programatically create a form that lists every day of the month and has a blank space next to it for the user to enter in how he commuted. User only has to fill in if he/she clean commuted. The question is, how do I:
1. Select Records that have already been entered for a month and populate them to a line on my form.
2. Show a blank space for a user to enter info on any date that is not associated with a record.
3. Update any records they changed.
4. Append any new records they enter in the blanks.
I need to do this all on one form so it is easy. I cannot ask the users to navigate.
I appreciate any suggestion that might lead me to a solution. Many thanks.
A standard bound form will do that.
Use the wizard to get started and specify your table as the source.
After much testing and working (strange not find examples of this), I have determined the way to do this.
Do not programmatically create the form.
a. Forms in Access are tied so closely to accesses "form binding" functionality that there are to many limitations trying to work with a programmatically created form. It's very difficult to do.
A better solution is to programmatically create a temporary table that has the correct data structure and bind the form to that temp table.
a. thus the only programmatic part of your form is setting the bindings. Once that is done, you can rely on the form binding in Access to work easily with your Select, Update, and Append functions.
I want to create a record of an entity, but I need to pass a list of guids to the pre create plugin. I don't want to create fields or related entities to do this. Can I use the Shared Variables to do it?
In other words is it possible to set shared variables before initiating the action that will trigger the plugins that will consume them?
EDIT:
I can be creating this type of records from different points that integrate with crm, silverlight, external pages or even plugins of other entities. My current problem can be solved with a field on the entity, but this way if I had to send parameters to control the execution of the plugin for two or more independent actions I would need one field for each action or instead use only one field using a complex format/parse pattern to parameterize each different action. Using fields to accomplish this feature looks a bit excessive.
If the shared variables could be set before the call of the action that will trigger the plugin that would solve the problem and I wouldn't have to create fields in the crm database, because the data I want to pass to the plugin it will only be needed at that time, like a parameter in a function, no need to persist them in the database.
But if it is not possible I will have to stick with the fields :(
Not if they vary by entity/execution of the plugin.
Options:
Set them in the plugin configuration if they don't change but need to be updated
without a recompile.
Apply them as a delimited string in a single field on the entity if they vary per record.
What's the reason for not wanting to use 2?
Nope. The easiest solution that I can think of is to add a BAT (big-ass text) field to the entity and populate it with a comma-delimited list of GUIDs, then access that field in your Create plugin. You could even clear it out if you don't want that extra data in your system.
Edit after your edit:
General comment about your thinking process: you are probably overthinking it. :) Using a single field, you could pass in any kind of "command" using a json or xml formatted string. As I said above, in the pre-create plugin, after you have extracted this "argument" field, you can clear out that field in the Target entity image and that data will never be persisted to the database. Technically it achieves the exact result you want with the only side effect being one extra "argument" field that is always NULL in the database. Don't fight simplicity so hard! :)
Presently, I'm tracking changes to all of my tables using SQL Server 2008 Change Tracking. Everything works out of the box just fine. However, an additional complexity is that the application reading these changes needs to make a change to a date column on each table that is being tracked. Changes in my application are like triggers to tell me that I need to send out additional data. This could cause an endless cycle if not managed.
There's a sent date that gets filled in after each change is read.
Is it configurable at a database/table level to ignore an individual column on a table so that versions/changes are not tracked when that column is modified?
Using change tracking, there's two ways but both involve merely filtering the results; there is not a way to limit the change tracking by column.
1) Filter by context
The following link shows how to change the context for when an application changes data. If you change the context specific to what is making the changes, you can then filter it by that when you query. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc280462(v=sql.105).aspx
2) Filter using the columns updated mask
In addition, I have to admit that I roll my own change tracking still. I have scripts that I execute to autogenerate code triggers. They can be customized to prevent non-changing updates (i.e. a row update that changes no fields you are interested in), plus they allow me to fully control things. I can track which fields I want, plus I can move all of my tracking/default fields (such as suser_sname()) into the tracking table so that the day to day business tables are kept slim. If you are interested in this option, reply as such and I'll post the code to autogenerate the triggers and tracking table for a given table name.
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.
I am trying to design an efficient database schema for user settings in SQL Server 2008 R2. The wrinkle here is that we need multiple levels of granularity, and I'm not sure how to efficiently represent that.
We have a handful of settings that can be applied to a full Account, a single Module, or a specific Feature. Currently the way the table has been set up is something to the effect of:
AccountId int
ModuleId int
FeatureId int
SettingData string
(please don't get hung up on what SettingData is or isn't, I just made it a string here in the example to distinguish it from the other Ids).
Problem: Many customers have access to many modules, and these modules have access to many features. A single Account making a change to SettingData can modify 4000 records. This is absolutely not tenable for obvious reasons, and I'm determined to fix it.
The solution is obviously to have a few different tables that, by their usage, override eachother and allow some account wide settings and granular preferences. However, I've never done this before and my attempts at designing it end up looking disturbingly similar to the inefficient table structure we currently have.
Thanks in advance, any help is appreciated.
It sounds as though settings can currently be specified at the following levels:
Account
Module
Feature
Given that there are probably already tables set up for each of Account, Module and Feature, it would appear to make sense to:
Remove the existing table.
Set up a new field for setting data on each of the existing Account, Module and Feature tables.
Since the general principle is that the specific should override the general, a Module-level setting should override an Account-level setting, and a Feature-level setting should override a Module-level setting.
The advantage of this approach is that any time a specific setting was updated, only a single record would need to be updated.
The disadvantage is that to determine which setting should apply to a specific feature (for a specific account) in a specific module, 3 tables would have to be queried instead of one.