Following @Shneor Cheshin recommendation, your primary table TASK_EVENT should have an explicit relationship with the REQUEST table. The current implicit join might not be interpreted correctly by the framework. Therefore, it's best to create a view that directly joins these tables, as suggested. Even with a log level set to 9, the framework will not show the values on the logging.
Hi Ady,This is a little behavior! Could you backup your sync rule in DEV and remove both the sync rule and extract just to check there are no anomalies? Then recreate only the sync rule for the custom table. The extract is automatically created. Could you give it a try if possible? Also, the data in custom metadata, sync rule, extract are identical in both DEV and TEST? Do you see any errors on the server log or mobile log related to this?
Ady, Could you try to add a space on your initial query and save the sync rule? This would automatically adjust the extract rule if there was something missing in the config. Could you try this out and let me know the result? Also, how are the payments created? Is this bypassing the framework methods using custom code? Do you have any idea
Thanks both. @Shneor Cheshin - yes I can take the Sync Rule and post that independently and both the Ownership and Related Query do what I would expect. @SAMLK - The expanded Addresses section for the sync rule on the extract are the same as others for Mobile. Thanks again Ady Hi Ady,Did you manually create the extract rule or, was it automatically created after you defined the sync rule for custom table? Sorry for the delayed response!
Hi @TDCANJANA You can perform a mass delete using a XML BR based on the input conditions. Please refer the sample xml message below. The message is quite similar to mass update, and the only difference is that we need to replace the ‘update’ element with ‘delete’ right after the hierarchy select.<mass_update_invoice> <hierarchy_select> <attrs> <attr>invoice.invoice_id</attr> </attrs> <primary_table>invoice</primary_table> <from> <table>invoice</table> </from> <where> <data_constraint> <constraint> <left_operand>invoice.user_def2</left_operand> <operator>eq</operator> <right_operand>N</right_operand> </constraint> </data_constraint> </where> </hierarchy_select> <invoice> <user_def2>Y</user_def2> <delete /> </invoice> &
Hi Ady,Could you share the expanded Addresses section for your custom sync rule here if possible?
Hi @STRGoedhart ,Sample 1 : Expression annotations typically do not function as expected, particularly when validating datetime (dttm) fields. This is because the expression itself behaves as a string in the XML message, rather than the desired functionality. The XML message requires a dttm value as the right operand according to your example. As @Morris mentioned, the expression annotation directly works when it comes to a XML BR but it will not work if you are going to place that on a scheduled process. Therefore, it is necessary to modify the XML as demonstrated below.<perform_batch> <perform_evaluate_expression> <parameters> <table_name>task</table_name> <keys> <key_item> <column_name>task_id</column_name> <column_value>245</column_value> </key_item> </keys> <expression>today()</expression> </parameters> </perform_evaluate_ex
@SAMLK We were on the right track. Had fresh pot of coffee and got stuck into this again. I updated the extract path on the relation definitions so we would go to the next level on the XML. Then on the mapping remove the /customfield so I was going straight to the map I needed The output for multi part PO’s were looking spot on. Thanks again, between you and the coffee we got there :D Ady Oh this is great Ady.. Glad you could figure out the final part !!!! :D
@AdrianEgley glad I could help you up to a certain extent. I will let you know in case if I found a workaround (highly doubt it)
Hi Ady,I’m also running out of ideas for this specific requirement unfortunately. :( I thought the xml structure was a fixed one initially. Most likely, this is going to be a code level enhancement as we cannot repeat the same element in a dynamically structured relationship in the fsm integration framework.
Hi @mmalek ,I suggest you to take a look at the UI designer level configurations made at the baseline TASK screen for TASK_STEPS tab. There, they have used the task_steps_attachment table with an attachment alias table. Even though they have used the alias table for the field references, the main table_ref is the task_steps_attachment table. Could you check whether the new button is linked to your original table and also the list list view configuration for task list view as well? Otherwise, this could be a potential bug as you have mentioned for the custom table alias.
Adding more information on the same subject in which I thought would be useful..It’s not necessarily required to have 3 relationships in your map as the primary table relationship itself stands out as a unique relation in the xml map. :) So in your case, you can leave the first two fields as it is and then apply the two relationships correspondingly. It will still give you the correct end result.
Hi @SAMLK That’s fantastic and to an extent produces the XML as you have laid out. However how would I get that all inside one <customfields> </customfields> set of tags? Example; <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><request> <customfields> <customfield> <customfieldname>FSM_PART_NUMBER</customfieldname> <customfieldvalue>612</customfieldvalue> </customfield> <customfield> <customfieldname>SUPPLIER_PART_NUMBER</customfieldname> <customfieldvalue>1234</customfieldvalue> </customfield> <customfield> <customfieldname>QTY</customfieldname> <customfieldvalue>200</customfieldvalue> </customfield> </customfields></request> Hi Ady,Sorry I have missed that part in my example. You can do a small adjustment like this on your map’s primary xpath, relationship xpat
Hi @mmalek ,Could you share all the defined relationships from the REQUEST to CLAIMS (on the UI designer child list editor)?
Hi @ArcChiedM ,Ideally the completed task will be removed from the job list on MWO and the server side will be updated to ‘Work Done’. Is it still remaining the same as work started on server side even though you have updated the status to completed from MWO side? Is this happening for a single user or all the users? Suggesting you to check the user level permission sets → projections for MWO component which allows to send transactions from app to server , security grants by permission set as it’s needed to allow the app to retrieve data synced from the server. Also, check the failed transactions and logs under the solution manager → mobile app user details.
Hi Ady,The FSM integration framework will not recognize repeating elements unless a parent-child relationship is defined in your XML map.Therefore, as a workaround for this issue, you can define three dummy relationships (based on your example) on the relationships tab and include them in your XML map, as shown in the following example. defining the 3 dummy relationshipscalling them in the xml mapThe formatted result, <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><request> <customfields> <customfield> <customfieldname>FSM_PART_NUMBER</customfieldname> <customfieldvalue>612</customfieldvalue> </customfield> </customfields> <customfields> <customfield> <customfieldname>SUPPLIER_PART_NUMBER</customfieldname> <customfieldvalue>1234</customfieldvalue> </customfield> </customfields> <customfields> <customfield>
Hi @Narsing Rao If you are using the web client scripts, then suggesting you to get the perform_copy MPM to execute in your client script (have not tried this one before, but I have been able to call several other MPMs using the web client scripts).The general MPM for perform_copy mpm looks like this in XML. Therefore, you need to format the xml message accordingly.<perform_copy> <parameters> <key_item /> <key_item /> <column_name /> <column_value /> <table_name /> <copy_map_id /> <copy_from_keys /> <copy_to_keys /> <user_input_values /> <table_name /> <column_name /> <column_value /> <user_input_value /> </parameters></perform_copy>webclient script var performExecuteVars = {};performExecuteVars.column_name = 'task_id'; performExecuteVars.copy_map_id = 'YOUR_MAP_ID';performExecuteVars.table_name = 'task';performExecuteVars.copy_from_keys = {tas
Hi @ERCPRATIK ,You can use the search term “!yourkeyword*” similar to a not like operator. ‘! ‘represents not equal and ‘*’ represents the wildcard which substitutes one or more character. Also, you can use ‘+’ operator to combine with multiple keywords.i.e. “!keyword1* + !keyword2*”Below example shows the search result for tasks which do not start the place_ids from “A2” keyword. Without the filterWith filter
Hi @Miraj As you correctly said the primary table name needs to be added here for the primary path. However as far as the news I have received, the deletes are not really supported from fsm connect unless you directly provide the above delete attribute + primary table. Yes the json syntax also might not work like you said.
@SAMLK Thanks. I tried it and it worked as following, A couple of things, looks like there isn’t a way to get this to work with a map yeah? and would you know the syntax for this in JSON? Yes you can obviously make it work with a map if you just add the correct primary path in your xml map correctly. I have tried the above sample with a map. You don’t even need to call the map name or the perform message if you have a unique primary path defined in your xml map (in my case it’s //task). Framework will automatically select the corresponding map. Calling from postmanthe json formatted text for the above would be something like this according to the newtonsoft library (not quite sure whether it would work as I have not tried this out from json ){"task":{"@delete":"true","task_id":"245"}}
Hi @Miraj ,Ah, I forgot to mention that there is a keyword as you correctly guessed, which you need to send in the payload in addition to the allow_delete option. The payload should have an attribute called delete=”TRUE”example:<task delete="true"><task_id>246</task_id></task> However, I hope that you are aware of the consequences of allowing the delete transactions, as they are not really encouraged when it comes to the integrations specially with dependent transactions. :)
Hi @Miraj Did you only check the allow delete option and unchecked the rest in the inbound settings? There is no special keyword as far as I can recall.
I just want to make fields mandatory in XML map itself only for that particular outbound. I don’t want to use UI or custom metadata or BR Hi @Ooha Priya Battula What’s your scenario here? Can’t you trigger the map based on the constraints? You can either use xpaths conditionally in the map or add the mandatory fields as constraints / input fields in a BR. Could you elaborate more on your requirement if possible?
Hi @Durga This is the default behavior of mass updates and fsm will skip the next lot of updates if there is an exception thrown, based on the transaction size to process in the mass update. Therefore, suggesting you to change the element <transaction_size>50</transaction_size> as <transaction_size>1</transaction_size> which should resolve your problem
Hi @SAMLK, It is still happening and it’s something I have noticed in the past with false negatives at server log level i.e. referencing a file that no longer exists as it’s already been processed. However, to get around this instead of the folder listener always being on, I have configure to check every ‘x’ minutes and that appears to stop any duplication of files attempting to be processed. I don’t have any BR’s in place for integrations like this, it is a straight-forward import of a dataset. Ady Hi @AdrianEgley Are you able to replicate the same problem in another environment (Test or Dev) ? Then I’d suggest you to open a support incident for this.
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
