I have some complex scenario which I am unable to achieve it. Here the below user stories I received from client.
User Story:
If the case has been in the status of 'Pending Decision' for 30 days and case owner is in queue, Task should be generated under the case. Task Owner should be assigned to 'Derrick James'. If the case has been in the status of 'Pending Decision' for 30 days and case owner is in 'Rahul Rathore' (or someone other), Task should be generated under the case. Task Owner should be assigned to 'Case Owner'.
I have done the above scenario in process builder. I am not able to assign the task owner since it has two scenario. I need to implement this configuration within a week. Please help me on this. Thanks in advance.
After digging lots of blog. Here I'm providing links which can be useful in future. Using Begins function and Using Left function
Related
We are facing DUPLICATE_VALUE error while assigning permission set .
We are having 1 future method called from event trigger and another from user trigger.
for salesforce internal users its working fine , because that time event trigger is not triggering.
But for community user both future method executing in same transaction.
So basically
futurePermissionSetAssignment1 executes from UserTrigger , so it assign permission set
futurePermissionSetAssignment2 executes after futurePermissionSetAssignment1 , although we are verifying if permission is not assigned to user already but it didnt take result of futurePermissionSetAssignment1.
Experts please guide if it can be handle.
PS: I cant put community user check.
Your description is bit messy and some code samples would help.
If it looks like you have parallel execution problem (operation A running a query, deciding to do X, in meantime operation B changes the state faster and A will fail because it works on old query results)...
You could do your thing as "save what you can" with Database.insert(myAssignments, false);: https://developer.salesforce.com/docs/atlas.en-us.apexcode.meta/apexcode/langCon_apex_dml_database.htm
Have a look at record locking with "FOR UPDATE". If both your futures start with say SELECT Id FROM User WHERE Id IN :... FOR UPDATE they should detect a lock and one will wait for the other to finish (or will fail after 10 seconds)
I've to create an automation process to check that no new opportunities has been created for an account in past 12 months and update the account field based on that.
Tried process builder, but it doesn't seem to work.
Tricky
A flow/workflow/process builder needs some triggering condition to fire. If an account was created 5 years ago, not updated since, haven't had any opportunities - it will not trigger any flows until somebody touches it.
And even if you somehow to manage to make a time-based workflow for example (to enqueue making a Task 1 year from now if there are no Opps by then) - it'll "queue" actions only from the moment it was created, it will not retroactively tag old unused accounts.
The time-based actions suck a bit. Say you made it work, it enqueued some future tasks/field updates/whatevers. Then you realise you need to exclude Accounts of certain record type from it. You need to deactivate the workflow/flow to do it - and deactivation wipes the enqueued actions out. So you'd need to save your changes and somehow "touch" all accounts again so they're checked again.
Does it have to be a field on Account? Can it be just a report (which you could make a reporting snapshot of if needed)? You could embed a report on account layout right? A query? Worst case some apex nightly job that runs and tags the accounts? It would dutifully run through them all and set/clear your helper field, easy to change (well, for a developer).
SELECT Id, Name
FROM Account
WHERE Id NOT IN (SELECT AccountId FROM Opportunity WHERE CreatedDate = LAST_N_DAYS:365)
Reporting way would be "cross filter": https://salesforce.vidyard.com/watch/aQ6RWvyPmFNP44brnAp8tf, https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=sf.reports_cross_filters.htm&type=5
I need some guidance from anyone who has deployed a real-world, in-production application that uses the Sql Server Service Broker external activation mechanism (via the Service Broker External Activator from the Feature Pack).
Current mindset:
My specs are rather simple (or at least I think so), so I'm thinking of the following basic flow:
order-like entity gets inserted into a Table_Orders with state "confirmed"
SP_BeginOrder gets executed and does the following:
begins a TRANSACTION
starts a DIALOG from Service_HandleOrderState to Service_PreprocessOrder
stores the conversation handle (from now on PreprocessingHandle) in a specific column of the Orders table
sends a MESSAGE of type Message_PreprocessOrder containing the order id using PreprocessingHandle
ends the TRANSACTION
Note that I'm not ending the conversation, I don't want "fire-and-forget"
event notification on Queue_PreprocessOrder activates an instance of PreprocessOrder.exe (max concurrent of 1) which does the following:
begins a SqlTransaction
receives top 1 MESSAGE from Queue_PreprocessOrder
if message type is Message_PreprocessOrder (format XML):
sets the order state to "preprocessing" in Table_Orders using the order id in the message body
loads n collections of data of which computes an n-ary Carthesian product (via Linq, AFAIK this is not possible in T-SQL) to determine the order items collection
inserts the order items rows into a Table_OrderItems
sends a MESSAGE of type Message_PreprocessingDone, containing the same order id, using PreprocessingHandle
ends the conversation pertaining to PreprocessingHandle
commits the SqlTransaction
exits with Environment.Exit(0)
internal activation on Queue_HandleOrderState executes a SP (max concurrent of 1) that:
begins a TRANSACTION
receives top 1 MESSAGE from Queue_InitiatePreprocessOrder
if message type is Message_PreprocessingDone:
sets the order state to "processing" in Table_Orders using the order id in the message body
starts a DIALOG from Service_HandleOrderState to Service_ProcessOrderItem
stores the conversation handle (from now on ProcessOrderItemsHandle) in a specific column of Table_Orders
creates a cursor for rows in Table_OrderItems for current order id and for each row:
sends a MESSAGE of type Message_ProcessOrderItem, containing the order item id, using ProcessOrderItemsHandle
if message type is Message_ProcessingDone:
sets the order state to "processed" in Table_Orders using the order id in the message body
if message type is http://schemas.microsoft.com/SQL/ServiceBroker/EndDialog (END DIALOG):
ends the conversation pertaining to conversation handle of the message
ends the TRANSACTION
event notification on Queue_ProcessOrderItem activates an instance of ProcessOrderItem.exe (max concurrent of 1) which does the following:
begins a SqlTransaction
receives top 1 MESSAGE from Queue_ProcessOrderItem
if message type is Message_ProcessOrderItem (format XML):
sets the order item state to "processing" in Table_OrdersItems using the order item id in the message body, then:
loads a collection of order item parameters
makes a HttpRequest to a URL using the parameters
stores the HttpResponse as a PDF on filesystem
if any errors occurred in above substeps, sets the order item state to "error", otherwise "ok"
performs a lookup in the Table_OrdersItems to determine if all order items are processed (state is "ok" or "error")
if all order items are processed:
sends a MESSAGE of type Message_ProcessingDone, containing the order id, using ProcessOrderItemsHandle
ends the conversation pertaining to ProcessOrderItemsHandle
commits the SqlTransaction
exits with Environment.Exit(0)
Notes:
specs specify MSSQL compatibility 2005 through 2012, so:
no CONVERSATION GROUPS
no CONVERSATION PRIORITY
no POISON_MESSAGE_HANDLING ( STATUS = OFF )
I am striving to achieve overall flow integrity and continuity, not speed
given that tables and SPs reside in DB1 whilst Service Broker objects (messages, contracts, queues, services) reside in DB2, DB2 is SET TRUSTWORTHY
Questions:
Are there any major design flaws in the described architecture ?
Order completion state tracking doesn't seem right. Is there a better method ? Maybe using QUEUE RETENTION ?
My intuition tells me that in no case whatsoever should the activated external exe terminate with an exit code other than 0, so there should be try{..}catch(Exception e){..} finally{ Environment.Exit(0) } in Main. Is this assumption correct ?
How would you organize error handling in DB code ? Is an error log table enough?
How would you organize error handling in external exe C# code ? Same error logging
table ?
I've seen the SQL Server Service Broker Product Samples, but the Service Broker Interface seems overkill for my seemingly simpler case. Any alternatives for a simpler Service Broker object model ?
Any cross-version "portable" admin tool for Service Broker capable of at least draining poison messages ?
Have you any decent code samples for any of the above ?
Q: Are there any major design flaws in the described architecture ?
A: Couple of minor perks:
- waiting for an HTTP request to complete while holding open a transaction is bad. You can't achieve transactional consistency between a database and HTTP anyway, so don't risk to have a transaction stretch for minutes when the HTTP is slow. The typical pattern is to {begin tran/receive/begin conversation timer/commit} then issue the HTTP call w/o any DB xact. If the HTTP call succeeds then {begin xact/send response/end conversation/commit}. If the HTTP fails (or client crashes) then let the conversation time activate you again. You'll get a timer message (no body), you need to pick up the item id associated with the handle from your table(s).
Q: Order completion state tracking doesn't seem right. Is there a better method ? Maybe using QUEUE RETENTION ?
A: My one critique of your state tracking is the dependency on scanning the order items to determine that the current processed one is the last one (5.3.4). For example you could add the information that this is the 'last' item to be processed in the item state so you know, when processing it, that you need to report the completion. RETENTION is only useful in debugging or when you have logic that require to run 'logical rollback' and to compensating actions on conversation error.
Q: My intuition tells me that in no case whatsoever should the activated external exe terminate with an exit code other than 0, so there should be try{..}catch(Exception e){..} finally{ Environment.Exit(0) } in Main. Is this assumption correct ?
A: The most important thing is for the activated process to issue a RECEIVE statement on the queue. If it fails to do so the queue monitor may enter the notified state forever. Exit code is, if I remember correctly, irrelevant. As with any background process is important to catch and log exceptions, otherwise you'll never even know it has a problem when it start failing. In addition to disciplined try/catch blocks, Hookup Application.ThreadException for UI apps and AppDomain.UnhandledException for both UI and non-UI apps.
Q: How would you organize error handling in DB code ? Is an error log table enough?
A: I will follow up later on this. Error log table is sufficient imho.
Q: How would you organize error handling in external exe C# code ? Same error logging table ?
A: I created bugcollect.com exactly because I had to handle such problems with my own apps. The problem is more than logging, you also want some aggregation and analysis (at least detect duplicate reports) and suppress floods of errors from some deployment config mishap 'on the field'. Truth be told nowadays there are more options, eg. exceptron.com. And of course I think FogBugs also has logging capabilities.
Q: I've seen the SQL Server Service Broker Product Samples, but the Service Broker Interface seems overkill for my seemingly simpler case. Any alternatives for a simpler Service Broker object model ?
finally, an easy question: Yes, it is overkill. There is no simple model.
Q: Any cross-version "portable" admin tool for Service Broker capable of at least draining poison messages ?
A: The problem with poison messages is that the definition of poison message changes with your code: the poison message is whatever message breaks the current guards set in place to detect it.
Q: Have you any decent code samples for any of the above ?
A: No
One more point: try to avoid any reference from DB1 to DB2 (eg. 4.3.4 is activated in DB1 and reads the items table from DB2). This creates cross DB dependencies which break when a) one DB is offline (eg. for maintenance) or overloaded or b) you add database mirroring for HA/DR and one DB fails over. Try to make the code to work even if DB1 and DB2 are on different machines (and no linked servers). If necessary, add more info to the messages payload. And if you architect it that way that DB2 can be on a different machine and even multiple DB2 machines can exists to scale out the HTTP/PDF writing work.
And finally: this design will be very slow. I'm talking low tens messages per second slow, with so many dialogs/messages involved and everything with max_queue_readers 1. This may or may not be acceptable for you.
I'm working on a project in dead ASP (I know :( )
Anyway it is working with a kdb+ database which is major overkill but not my call. Therefore to do inserts etc we're having to write special functions so they can be handled.
Anyway we've hit a theoretical problem and I'm a bit unsure how it should be dealt with in this case.
So basically you register a company, when you submit validation will occur and the page will be processed, inserting new values to the appropriate tables. Now at this stage I want to pull ID's from the tables and use them in the session for further registration screens. The user will never add a specific ID of course so it needs to be pulled from the database.
But how can this be done? I'm particularly concerned with 2 user's simultaneously registering, how can I ensure the correct ID is passed back to the correct session?
Thank you for any help you can provide.
Instead of having the ID set at the point of insert, is it possible for you to "grab" an ID value before hand, and then use that value throughout the process?
So:
Start the registration.
System connects to the database, creates an ID (perhaps from an ID table) and Stores in ASP Session.
Company registers.
You validate and insert data into DB (including the ID session)
The things you put in the Session(...) collection is only visible to that session (i.e. the session is used only by the browser windows on one computer). The session is identified by a GUID value that is stored in a cookie on the client machine. It is "safe" to store your IDs there (other users won't be able to read them easily) .
either your id can include date and time - so it will be example - id31032012200312 - but if you still think that 2 people can register at the same type then I would use recordset locks liek the ones here - http://www.w3schools.com/ado/prop_rs_locktype.asp
To crea ids like above in asp you do - replace(date(),"/","") ' and then same with time with ":"
Thanks
I'm trying to analyze a deadlock in SQL Server 2008 profiler. I know how to find the offending sql queries, but the collected queries do not include parameter values.
I other words I can see something like this:
DELETE FROM users WHERE id = #id
But what I would like to see is this:
DELETE FROM users WHERE id = 12345
I guess there are some additional events or Columns I need to collect in the profiler, but I don't know which. I am currently using the "TSQL_LOCKS" template.
Any hints would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Adrian
Disclaimer: I've asked a similar question before, but I guess it was too specific, which is why I got no replies. I'm starting another attempt with this one.
I think you need the RPC:Completed event:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175543.aspx
The Profiler will contain the parameter values in the RPC:Completed/RPC:Starting events. But you already got replies telling you this.
What I want to add is that is very little need to know the parameter run-time values in order to analyze a deadlock graph. First, because if 'users' is involved in the deadlock, the deadlock graph itself will give away what #id is the conflict, if the conflict is on a key. Second, more importantly, for a deadlock scenario is irrelevant the exact keys that are involved. Is not like a deadlock happens because one deletes user with id 123 but will not happen when it deletes user 321.
If you decided to ask on SO in the first place, I think the best would be to post the actual deadlock graph and let the community have a look at it. There are many here that can answer quite a few questions just from the deadlock graph XML.
Start a trace with the following events having all checkboxes checked:
SQL: BatchCompleted
SQL: BatchStarting
Deadlock graph
Lock:Deadlock
Lock:Deadlock chain
After the deadlock occurs, stop the trace, then click on the deadlock graph event class.
This should give you a good idea of what's going wrong.
If you're using a stored procedure (which it looks like you are) or Hibernate/NHibernate you might need to turn on the Stored Procedures starting event (SP:StmtStarting) and RPC:Starting event. This will show the parameters in it's own line after the query.
Something like:
SP:StmtStarting DELETE FROM users WHERE id = #id
RPC:Starting exec sp_execute 12345