Hi,
No DB/Server-traffic is needed. All fields are retrieved when the ticket
is shown. All that needs to be done, is to keep a data-copy of changed
fields in the client memory.
It would not be a true DB-value, but I do not think that it matters. What
you typically want to do is to check for changes that the specific user
has done. The user will in any case get a warning on save if the record
has been updated since retrieval.
What would be nice, both in ACTL and FLTR, would be to be able to use the
DB/TR syntax in Set-Fields Actions. Both in a search qualification and in
values for CURRENT TRANSACTION operation.
Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://rrr.se
Products from RRR Scandinavia:
* RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing.
* RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs.
* RRR|Translator - Manage and automate your language translations.
Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se.
> Misi, as best I understand it, the TR/DB functionality only exists in
> Server-based workflow due to the client/server traffic involved in making
> it
> functional (retrieving DB info and processing it in phase, etc.) on
> client-based Active Links. There's almost certainly a better answer than
> that, but that one makes enough sense to me.
>
> Rick
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Misi Mladoniczky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The TR/DB-functionality allways does it. The problem is that the syntax
>> is, for some very obscure reason, not available in Active Links.
>>
>> ('Status' != 'DB.Status') is the exact same thing as ('Status'.changed =
>> 1) would be. I see no point in changing the syntax, but it would be nice
>> to use it in Active Links.
>>
>> The Hidden/Visible stuff is less useful. It can allways be tracked with
>> a
>> display-only-flag. It does no great harm to do one extra Hide or Show...
>>
>> Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://rrr.se
>>
>> > I'm going to put this in as an RFE - I highly expect to get shot down
>> > even though it would save a LOT of coding work at times.
>> >
>> > First though I thought I'd ask for input and criticism of the idea.
>> >
>> > Frequently I want workflow to fire on dependencies like a field being
>> > visible/hidden or a field value having been changed. TR/DB value
>> > comparisons frequently do not do it depending on what I'm trying to
>> > accomplish.
>> >
>> > What I'd really like to be able to do at least in Active Links is a
>> "Run
>> > IF" that went something like:
>> >
>> > 'Status'.changed=1
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> > 'Myfield".visible=0
>> >
>> > Just about every GUI coding platform I've seen has things like this.
>> >
>> > I'm also going to put in an RFE for improved logging for things like
>> > Dialog Open/Close field mappings, etc.
>> >
>> > Crazy requests? What say you?
>> >
>> > William Rentfrow, Principal Consultant
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > C 701-306-6157
>> > O 952-432-0227
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________________________________________
>> > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
>> > Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
>> >
>> > --
>> > This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________________
>> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
>> Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
>>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
> Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
>
> --
> This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean.
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
