That is weird.

 

Did you'll try the field ID as in $900000001$ if lets say 900000001 was the
field ID of that custom field Operation?

 

Joe

 

  _____  

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Miller
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 3:38 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: How to execute AI jobs from workflow

 

** 

I have been having that same issue in recent version of Dev Studio with
fields called 'Schema'.  I have been using this same field and ID for years
an now when I create new or update old workflow I end up changing the field
name to get around it.

 

Jason

 

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Rick Cook <[email protected]> wrote:

** 

That's the conclusion I came to as well, Phil. Removing the qualifications
cleared the error message, though it did reveal a quirk in the UDM:Execution
Form.  When trying to map the fields on my DO Form to their identical
counterparts on UDM:Execution Form, the field named "Operation" resolves to
the keyword $OPERATION$.   I had to rename my custom field to Operation1 to
get past that.  

Rick

On Jul 24, 2014 5:13 AM, "Murnane, Phil" <[email protected]> wrote:

** 

Rick:

 

It sounds like the server would have to perform a SQL SELECT (via the AR
System API, of course) in order to evaluate the criteria you have, then
based on the result set would perform your INSERT.  Try using the
documented, but not obvious, "always push no matter what" configuration for
the Push Fields Action.

 

I just found this in the AR System .PDF:

 

Note
Using a qualification causes the Push Fields action to run a query to obtain
the list of matching requests, so make sure to optimize the Push Fields
qualification for best system performance. See Creating efficient
qualifications.

 

To create a Push Fields action that does not search for existing records but
instead always creates a request, do not enter a qualification. Instead,
select the following values:
   In the If No Requests Match field, select Create a New Request.
   In the If Any Requests Match field, select Take No Action.

 

HTH,

--Phil

 

  _____  

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Rick Cook [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 18:23
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: How to execute AI jobs from workflow

** 

Create New.  However, I wonder if the Run If qualification ($Name$ = 'Name')
AND ('Type' = $Type$) would be considered that?

Rick

 

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Grooms, Frederick W
<[email protected]> wrote:

Offhand question . Did your Push fields try to do a search or just create
new?

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rick Cook
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: How to execute AI jobs from workflow

**

I know that Event driven AI jobs are possible, because the documentation
says so.  And in spite of that, the system architecture does seem to allow
them.

However, I am finding it elusive to actually do.  I have a Transformation
that I can run successfully manually.  I put that into a Job that I can also
run manually, and can schedule to run.
I can also execute the job by creating a record manually in the
UDM:Execution form.  The final step would be to have some other AR System
action create that record.  It would stand to reason that any action against
any form that could execute a piece of workflow could create the record
there.

So I created a custom DO form, copied the fields from the UDM:Execution on
it, and added a button imaginatively entitled "Push to Run" which runs a
Push Fields to the UDM:Execution form.  Push the button, and I get an error
message:

"ARERR [8753] Error in plugin : Get List Entry With Fields not supported on
form UDM:Execution". 

Thing is, no GLEWF even shows up in the API log for the transaction.  So,
I'm kinda stuck for what to try next.  I suppose I could create a batch file
with the command line argument in it, but that's not as user-friendly as the
form solution.  And I suspect I would get the same error anyway.
Any ideas?

Rick 


_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
"Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"

Reply via email to