Not having the Entry ID before submit is why GUIDs are used. I can't think of case where I was not able to use a GUID to work around the Entry ID not being available before submit.
As much as I love new features and flexibility I think Misi is on to something here. Adding phase overriding at the action level would be powerful and could also be a support nightmare. Typically splitting the action into it's own filter does the job without adding another layer of complexity to all filters. Jason On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Joe Martin D'Souza <jdso...@shyle.net>wrote: > I cant recall any other reasons from the past, besides the requirement of > an entry being committed to the database, either because you need its entry > ID available during the transaction, for the use of some other action. This > applies to the entry ID's created from Push Fields too.. You can get around > this 50% of the times as you pointed out by manipulating the order of > filters or the actions that are required post ID creation.. but at times > you hit a wall where its just not possible and you wished that there was a > little more control on phasing on a particular action in a filter.. > > Joe > > -----Original Message----- From: Misi Mladoniczky > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:36 AM Newsgroups: > public.remedy.arsystem.general > > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: Commit Changes vs PERFORM ACTION APPLY > > Hi, > > Why would you want different actions to run in different phases? Do you > have any good user case? > > I would guess that the need arise very seldom. > > In that case I think we can split the filter into two filters instead. > > Adding granularity to what we can control, also makes the possibilities > for errors and mistakes much greater... > > Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se (ARSList MVP 2011) > > Products from RRR Scandinavia (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10/11): > * RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing. > * RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs. > Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se. > > While you'll brought out this idea, if at all BMC ever intends to change >> the >> way this works along the lines of your ideas, it would be even cooler if >> they changed it in such a way that you could control the specific phase >> you >> would like each action within a filter to run after you check that check >> box >> to override default phasing.. options like Default to let the action run >> on >> the default phase, Phase 1, Phase 2 etc for every action in that Filter so >> you could choose what action you would like the override.. >> >> That would probably add a lot more control than just saying - ok all >> actions >> run on phase 1 with the `! convention.. >> >> Joe >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Grooms, Frederick W >> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:40 AM Newsgroups: >> public.remedy.arsystem.general >> To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG >> Subject: Re: Commit Changes vs PERFORM ACTION APPLY >> >> I had put in a RFE back in 2010 to change the `! into a "Phase Override" >> radio button, but it was closed. I had suggested the radio >> button/dropdown >> so we could override the phase in all directions (I can see times where we >> would want a filter to run in Phase 4, such as if we have to push to on >> outside system after all processing is complete on a record) >> >> Fred >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) >> [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Rod Harris >> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 7:14 AM >> To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG >> Subject: Re: Commit Changes vs PERFORM ACTION APPLY >> >> ** Yeah Misi, >> >> I'm a bit surprised that the run process commands have grown so much >> faster >> than the actions. I guess it's quicker to develop features as Run Process >> commands rather than have dev studio hold our hand and check the syntax >> and >> context on entry. I know that it wouldn't be practical to expect every run >> process to be implemented as an action but for some of the very common >> ones >> it would make a lot of sense. A business time command would be nice. The >> syntax on those process commands is darn tricky even for experts. >> >> The other thing that has surprised me is that the odd `! naming convention >> for overriding filter phasing has survived all these years. Surely it >> would >> be much nicer to have a simple check box field or something to indicate >> this. It would be easy enough to phase out the old method over time and >> just >> auto set the new check box if the name ended in `! >> >> I'm not a fan of the mechanics of a piece of code featuring in the name. I >> think it should describe what it does rather than how it does it. If you >> change how it does it then you have to change its name also. In Remedy >> since >> the name of an active link or filter etc. is the key you have a problem >> with >> version control if you keep changing the names of things. If you leave the >> name the same despite changing how things are done then your naming >> convention becomes compromised. >> >> There's a lot I love about Remedy and it does keep getting better but I'd >> like it if these couple of things were improved. >> >> Rod Harris >> >> -----Original Message----- >> On 12 December 2011 16:32, Misi Mladoniczky wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I definitely vote for Commit Changes! >> >> Why use the ugly Run-Process bla bla bla syntax, when you have an action >> that does the same thing? >> >> Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se (ARSList MVP 2011) >> >> Products from RRR Scandinavia (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10/11): >> * RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing. >> * RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs. >> Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> That's a good question Mark. I'm not aware of any differences that would >>> make one more efficient than the other. Personally I prefer to use the >>> "Commit Changes" as it seems cleaner to use this rather than one of many >>> run process commands. >>> >>> Rod Harris >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> On 9 December 2011 04:51, Brittain, Mark wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> HI All,**** >>>> >>>> Commit Changes vs. PERFORM ACTION APPLY. Is one better to use than the >>>> other on ARS 6.3?**** >>>> >>>> I have one active link that populates data from a SQL query and a >>>> second >>>> active link to commit the changes. These were probably created under >>>> ARS >>>> 3 >>>> or 4. The Commit Changes does the job but always looking to smart way >>>> to >>>> do >>>> things.**** >>>> >>>> Thanks**** >>>> Mark **** >>>> >>>> >>>> *Mark Brittain* >>>> Remedy Developer**** >>>> *NaviSite - **A Time Warner Cable Company* >>>> mbritt...@navisite.com**** >>>> Office: 315-453-2912 x5335**** >>>> Mobile: 315-317-2897**** >>>> ** ** >>>> >>> > ______________________________**______________________________** > ___________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
