Off course that's an excellent workaround for more reasons than one. A non-licensed Remedy user can 'Add' an entry into that kind of a functionality and if Submitters are 'allowed' to modify their own records can modify that entry without a Fixed or Floating ARS license.
Joe D'Souza -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Watson, Benjamin A. Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Diary Fields ** These are some of the reasons we opt to eliminate all OOTB diary fields and rarely ever add new ones. Diary functionality can be attained by creating another background form to store text, etc. Then replace the diary field with a table field pointing to the backend form with an appropriate qualification. A lot more flexibility this way with fewer headaches. Ben ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe D'Souza Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Diary Fields My guess is that its perhaps having that capability will only allow a developer to check for TR and DB values against NULL as the diary field will otherwise not be equal to any constant. Only a LIKE comparison would be possible to check values contained in the DB. I have been in the past got stuck in a few corners too because of this limitation/design. Another limitation I do not like about diary fields is how they appear in a display only dialog box on window open. You cannot see the history - just the transactional part. You need to create a separate display only field to set and view the history part. I've often wondered why they have designed it that way. Joe D'Souza -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dwayne Martin Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Diary Fields Many years ago I submitted a suggestion to have the db contents of a diary field available to workflow. I've never heard back on it. Any reason why it wouldn't be a good idea? Dwayne Martin James Madison University ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:40:50 -0700 >From: Rick Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Diary Fields >To: [email protected] > > ** > Andy, workflow can only evaluate the current entry > into a diary field - all existing ones are > considered to be invisible to the transaction. > > Rick > > On 10/25/07, LJ LongWing (Head) > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ** > Not a dumb question actually....that qualification > in an AL will give you only the 'change' to the > diary. To determine if a diary has previous > values you should do a setfield of the entry into > a 0 length display only field and then check to > see if it is null... > > ------------------------------------------------ > > From: Action Request System discussion No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1092 - Release Date: 10/25/2007 1:14 PM _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
