I created the below to see my fields
from simple_salesforce import Salesforce
sf_conn = Salesforce(self.sf_conn_id)
fields = sf_conn.describe_object(self.object)['fields']
but when I print fields I notice some fields are not populating. Is there something I need to change in order to see them? This is an example of a field I'm not seeing: industry_field_c
The Describe API respects object- and field-level security. You will receive the describe data only for fields and objects to which the authenticated user has at least read permission.
Hence, the most likely explanation is that you don't have access to Industry_field__c.
Related
I'm need to create email in Sales Force with the recipient as a custom object rather than a User, Contact or Person. Unfortunately, it appears my client has created a custom object for the entity we need to contact.
I tried several methods in the UI and they have all ended up needing a User or Contact record to succeed.
I'm now using APEX code in a trigger, it also requires a User, but I have managed to get past that using this work around: Sending Emails in Salesforce to Non-Contacts Using Apex
Now I need to pass my custom object into the Email Template to get the merge fields from it.
I believe setWhatId is the correct approach, but it returns "Invalid entity type for whatId".
Not sure where to turn now....
In short, I have a custom object that is not a user or a contact, but it does have a related custom object with an email address field (also not user or contact).
I need to send an email to the email address recorded on the related custom object passing the custom object to the template to gain its merge fields.
Any help or guidance would be much appreciated. Can I even do this?
Best Regards,
Rod
From your comment and without knowing much more, the relationship traversal should look like this:
Contact c = [select id, Email from Contact where id=q.Client__r.Participant_Portal_Contact__r.id limit 1];
Assuming that the email address field is on a parent object you dont need to do this with code you can probably do this using a Visualforce Email template and the relatedTo set to the object with the details you want to use as merge fields. That way you can use it in workflow or process builder or flows without the need for code
I am trying to make a batch update to Salesforce as part of a data masking project and am getting the error INVALID_FIELD_FOR_INSERT_UPDATE when I try updating fields of a particular custom object via API.
Our custom object has a few standard fields and a few custom fields. The custom fields are what I'm trying to update but I keep getting denied.
Each field that I'm trying to update is either Long Text Area(32768) or Text(255). There are no lookups, controlling fields, validation rules, nor are there field dependencies.
I am able to make modifications to other objects (Account for example) via the masking process. I am also able to make modifications to the values through the web UI on the values for this custom object.
I've tried as members of the API group as well as System Administrator.
Can anyone please point me in the right direction? I don't have access to the source code of the masking tool, but I do have elevated rights in SF.
Thanks in advance for your advice.
The exact error:
INVALID_FIELD_FOR_INSERT_UPDATE Error message: Unable to create/update fields: Name. Please check the security settings of this field and verify that it is read/write for your profile or permission set.
The funny thing is that I'm not trying to update the field "Name". Name seems to be an auto-number field on the object, but I'm not sure why this field would change value on an update to a different column.
If some one facing the same issue of not able to update the Name column because it has data type as Name.
There are 2 solutions:
If you want to push the name of human then try pushing FirstName and LastName instead. "Name" will get populated automatically.
If you want to push the name of a product then try changing the type of Name field to Text. If that doesn't work then you can push the name to either FirstName or LastName, whichever is mandatory(Just A work around).
I simply want to display an input field, that will let me capture a user, so I can filter a list from a custom object by owner. CustomObject__c.OwnerId is not writable, so when I bind it to an input field, nothing is displayed on my page! I don't want to have a drop down list of users (There could be hundreds!) and I don't want to create a spurious custom object with a writeable field, related to the User object. How can I get the input field functionality for a read only field, as if it were writeable?
OwnerId field should be writeable. Unless your field security permissions are messed up or for example the field is hidden because it's a detail in Master-Detail relationship.
But when you'll manage to get it to work you'll see that most likely it's a bit weird lookup that can point to User or Queue.
If you're fine with that - great, just check the security around the field. If you need really only a lookup to user - check if you have any custom Lookup(User) field? You could create a dummy record of that type in the controller and don't do any DML with it, just use the fact it'll have the lookup.
If you don't have any custom ones - I think that Account / Contact / Opportunity owner must be a user (can't have queues). You might have to force <apex:input field... required="false"/> but other than that it should OK?
I have a view that shows user profile fields in a tabular format. There is a "Country" field, which is not accessible to anonymous users. When viewed as anonymous user, the field is not shown by Views, which is correct. However, I also have the same field exposed, so that users can filter by "Country". The exposed filter shows up for anonymous user and an anonymous user can actually filter by the field, even though he does not see the field value. Am I missing something or it is normal behavior? Is there a way to force the filter to be hidden for anonymous users?
If you want to achieve this without having to do any custom coding, you can try to display the filter as a block and set the permissions on the block to display only to authenticated users.
This in fact is a known issue and detailed at http://drupal.org/node/1352654. As per the last comment in that issue this "wont fix". That's strange, and certainly not to my liking. Hopefully there will be some solution in a future version.
In GAE, can you look up a User with the User object's user_id?
In other words, is there something equivalent to:
from google.appengine.api.users import User
user = User.get_by_id(user_id)
I don't think so.
... they certainly wouldn't just give you access to every holder of a google account!
The idea is that you store user ids as properties in your datastore, once they've logged in to your app.
There is a property type called UserProperty
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/datastore/typesandpropertyclasses.html
So, you can query your list of users from your own datastore definition.
hth
This seems to be the only post on the internet regarding this and since I was looking for a solution, I thought I'd post what I found here.
What amir75 said about using the UserProperty is fine for storing the User object itself returned by the google.appengine.users module.
But if you need to lookup a User by the user_id field instead of the default email field, usually something like user = User(email = 'validmail#gmailorgapps.com')
You can use this to query by user_id. user = User(_user_id = 'validuserid') The valid user_id is something that you got earlier from calling user.user_id()
I'm not sure what amir75 is referring to about having access to all google accounts since the User object returned will only have the email address and nickname, and that too only if the user authorizes the application to access that information.
My use case for this is I want people to sign up on the site, but they need an administrator to confirm them for using the site. The form used by the administrator for confirming the users can use email id as the field to identify the checkbox for confirming the user, but given that it might change, the user_id seems to be a safer field to use.