Michael,

The TR.field name syntax has caught many of us over the years.  You will 
probably get about 16 different responses to which qualification is most 
efficient.

First, TR.field name is NULL if the field is NULL.

One solution is TR.field name != DB.field name.  There are other variations 
checking field name against DB.field name.

Dave
--------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wireless)

----- Original Message -----
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) <arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG <arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>
Sent: Mon Jul 09 16:19:52 2007
Subject: FW: Logging changes

Sorry, forgot to include in the original message that we're on 5.1.2.  I know 
there exists an audit feature in 7.0 that I think will do this for me, and we 
have plans to upgrade in the relatively near future, but this is apparently a 
priority.

Thanks,

Dear Listers,

            I'm looking for a more "elegant" solution to a new requirement.  
Currently on our incident form, we have a tab called account management with 
about 15 checkboxes (Reset Password, Unlocked Account, Updated Email Address, 
etc.) for ticket tracking purposes.  The requirement is to track who, and to 
what these values are changed on a submit or modify action.  To make these 
values meaningful, the only way I can think of to satisfy this requirement is 
to have a filter for each checkbox, perform a set fields action if the 
transaction value of that checkbox is != NULL and set the action log to 
something along the lines of $USER$ changed Reset Password to $Reset Password$.



            Here's where I run into problems.  First, when I use the 
qualification 'TR.Reset Password' != $NULL$ it only detects the change from not 
checked to checked.  I assume this is because a checkbox only has one "value." 
(in this case, "Yes")  So I changed the qualification to 'Reset Password' != 
'DB.Reset Password'  This works, but now, when someone unchecks the box, the 
action log reads mcmanusm changed Reset Password to                       
(blank value because the checkbox only has the yes value)



            I suspect there's a better, or more elegant way to do this, but I'm 
a rookie so I'm deferring to the veteran (and I say that lovingly) community 
for any ideas.



Thanks much,



Michael A. McManus, SSgt, USAF

Remedy Developer

HQ 754 ELSG/DOMH

DSN: 596-6478 / Comm: 334-416-6478

_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the 
Answers Are"

Reply via email to