i have work-space in www.ibmwatsonconversation.com
in this work-space i have an entity of automotive_and_vehicles
in this entity have a value of vehicle brand
this value have many synonyms like opel isuzu bmw ford bently ... (30 synonyms)
like it showed in this two pic
entities+vehicle brand,synonyms
I succeed to get the entity and value in java code but when i want to get the synonym value i can't
this is the output script=>
script+output pic
You can use .literal property to get the exact text that was recognized as the detected entity. E.g. <?#automotive_and_vehicles.literal?> in your example.
Related
I am new in salesforce and I have a question. I am creating a new reporty type using opportunites and when I was in field layout properties I noticed there were total 40 fields for opporutiy object. I didnt had another object relation with opportunity just simple opportunity. But when I went to opportunity in in object manager there were only 29 items listed in fields and realtionship. Why are there 11 more fields in opportunity in reprot type then in fields and realtuionship
I was expeting the same number of fields in object manager and in report type but report type had more fields even when no object was linked with it
There's a number of fields that exist in the table but aren't visible in setup because you can't modify them, can't change user's right to see/edit them. It's bit like https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=sf.dev_objectfields.htm&type=5 but it doesn't mention CreatedDate, LastmodifiedDate, SystemModStamp... and on Opportunity there are more.
https://developer.salesforce.com/docs/atlas.en-us.238.0.object_reference.meta/object_reference/sforce_api_objects_opportunity.htm may be a good start but if you truly want everything - run a "describe" operation in Apex or maybe REST API (https://workbench.developerforce.com/ -> utilities -> rest explorer for example)
I have an Account object in Salesforce and I have an custom field called ExternalText. I have marked the field as and External Id and
"Set this field as the unique record identifier from an external system"
There are 2 accounts that have this field set to a value of E1 in Salesforce.
I want to do an upsert from a csv file using DataLoader and the csv looks something like this:
External Description
E1 Description 1
E1 Description 2
But when i do the upsert i get the error:
ExternalTest: more than one record found for external id field: [<id1>, <id2>]
I would have expected the Description field for both to be updated to Description 1 and then Description 2, so if i view the object in Salesforce the Description field would say Description 2
How can i do this ?
You can't do it like that. Upsert has to find 0 or exactly 1 record with that external id. On 0 it'll try to create, on 1 it'll try to update, anything else - error.
For most normal usages you'll want fields marked as ext id to also be marked unique. If this isn't unique at source - you need different value in your field or bite the bullet, learn SF record IDs and do plain old query + update for example.
There's 1 edge case why ext id doesn't automatically mark field unique but if you rely on that technicality I'd say you have bigger problems. Imagine system where both UK and Germany created customer ID 123 and they want to push it to Salesforce. They both claim they were first and absolutely won't change their unique ID. So the trick is you can pull it off with right sharing rules. Upsert done with user that only sees UK data will work and update only UK customer. As I said - it's a technicality, in a "you think you're clever but you just made admin's job trickier" area.
Quick Question. In the below code, you can see that the for loop (which takes all of the records in newTimecards and puts them as a variable called timecard) and adds the Resource_c to the resourceIds set. I'm confused about how this object is considered an ID data type. When an object is made in Salesforce does it automatically have an ID made, so that it knows Resource_c ID can be added to a set? Note that within the Resource_c Object there is also a field called Resource_ID_c. Resource_c within Timecard_c is a Master-Detail data type. Resource_c is the parent of Timecard_c.
Now that I think about it, resourceIds.add(timecard.Resource_c), does that reference the relationship between the two objects and then searches through Resource_c and adds the ID field Resource_ID_c automactically since it's a unique field?
Thanks for your help.
public class TimecardManager {
public class TimecardException extends Exception {}
public static void handleTimecardChange(List<Timecard__c> oldTimecards,
List<Timecard__c> newTimecards) {
Set<ID> resourceIds = new Set<ID>();
for (Timecard__c timecard : newTimecards) {
resourceIds.add(timecard.Resource__c);
}
Every object instance (and that means EVERY, including factory ones) has a unique organization level ID, whose field name is always Id, is covered by Apex type ID and is a case-sensitive string of 15 characters that also has an 18 character case-insensitive representation. The first three characters are object prefix code (e.g. 500 for a Case) so all instances of the same object share the same prefix. You see these values all across SF (for example in https://na1.salesforce.com/02s7000000BW59L the 02s7000000BW59L in the URL is the ID). When an instance of the object is created using INSERT DML operation, the salesforce automatically assigns unique value based on the prefix and the next available transactional sub ID, it all happens transparently to you.
This is not to be confused with object Name field which is a field you define when you create an object and which can be auto-incremented and so on (e.g. MYOBJ-{00000}) and which can have more meaning to a user than a cryptic ID
When you create a lookup or master-detail relationship it is ID that is being used to link the two instances, not the Name. In the above example Resource__c seems to be that lookup field and it contains Id value of row's master.
What the code does is it enumerates all resources used in timelines and builds a set of their IDs, the purpose of which is most probably to be used via WHERE Id IN :resourceIds clause to load resource details from master table.
mmix's answer is a great overview to what an ID is and where it comes from. To answer what I think is your specific question:
Any time there is a reference from one object to another (like here, between Timecard_c and Resource_c), the field representing the reference will be an ID. So, the for loop that calls resourceIds.add(timecard.Resource__c) is just building up your set of ID's (those 15-character strings). The timecard.Resource__c doesn't look through the Resource__c table to find the ID, timecard.Resource__c is the ID.
I have a Model called Version that looks like this:
from google.appengine.ext import db
import piece
class Version(db.Model):
"A particular version of a piece of writing."
parent_piece = db.ReferenceProperty(piece.Piece, collection_name='versions')
"The Piece to which this version belongs."
note = db.TextProperty()
"A note from the Author about this version."
content = db.TextProperty()
"The actual content of this version of the Piece."
published_on = db.DateProperty(auto_now_add=True)
"The date on which the version was published."
I would like to access instances of Version via their IDs, using Version.get_by_id(), but this call always returns None. I can see in the Datastore Viewer that they have ID values, and in the debugger, I can query for them but not use them:
>>> for each_ver in version.Version.all():
... print each_ver.key().id()
...
34
35
36
31
32
>>> a = version.Version.get_by_id(34)
>>> type(a)
<type 'NoneType'>
I see that there are plenty of questions here where people are able to use get_by_id() effectively just as I wish, and they do not see the results that I am seeing.
Could the problem be that each Version instance is a child in an Entity Group rather than a root of an Entity Group? Each Version lives in an Entity Group that looks like Member->Piece->Version. If that is the problem, is there a way that I can refer to Version entity without using its entire key? If that is not the problem, can anyone tell me what I can do to make get_by_id() work as expected?
Could the problem be that each Version
instance is a child in an Entity Group
rather than a root of an Entity Group?
Yes. An entity's key includes the keys of any parent entities.
If that is the problem, is there a
way that I can refer to Version entity
without using its entire key?
No. An entity is uniquely identified only by its entire key, which includes the keys of all the parent entities. If you know the kinds of its parent entities, though, you can use db.Key.from_path to construct the key from the chain of IDs or key names.
I had your same problem but in ndb.Model and I found that I need to convert the ID to an int. So maybe using version.Version.get_by_id(int(34)) can solve your problem.
I have a Model UnitPattern, which reference another Model UnitPatternSet
e.g.
class UnitPattern(db.Model):
unit_pattern_set = db.ReferenceProperty(UnitPatternSet)
in my view I want to display all UnitPatterns having unit_pattern_set refrences as None, but query UnitPattern.all().filter("unit_pattern_set =", None) returns nothing, though I have total 5 UnitPatterns, out of which 2 have 'unit_pattern_set' set and 3 doesn't have
e.g.
print 'Total',UnitPattern.all().count()
print 'ref set',UnitPattern.all().filter("unit_pattern_set !=", None).count()
print 'ref not set',UnitPattern.all().filter("unit_pattern_set =", None).count()
outputs:
Total 5
ref set 2
ref not set 0
Shouldn't sum of query 2 and 3 be equal to query 1 ?
Reason seems to be that I added reference property unit_pattern_set later on, and these UnitPattern objects existed before that, but then how can I filter such entities?
This is described succinctly in the docs:
An index only contains entities that
have every property referred to by the
index. If an entity does not have a
property referred to by an index, the
entity will not appear in the index,
and will never be a result for the
query that uses the index.
Note that
the App Engine datastore makes a
distinction between an entity that
does not possess a property and an
entity that possesses the property
with a null value (None). If you want
every entity of a kind to be a
potential result for a query, you can
use a data model that assigns a
default value (such as None) to
properties used by query filters.
In your case, you have 3 entities that don't have the unit_pattern_set property set at all (because that property wasn't defined in the Model at the time those entities were created) - therefore those properties doesn't exist in the database representation of that entity, therefore that entity does not appear in the index of that property for that kind of entity.
Dan Sanderson's book Programming Google App Engine explains this in great detail on ~page 150 (unfortunately not available in the Google Books preview)
To fix the models you already have, you'll have to iterate over a query on UnitPattern (I've not tested the following code, please check it before you run it on your live data):
patterns = UnitPattern.all()
for pattern in patterns:
if not pattern.unit_pattern_set:
pattern.unit_pattern_set = None
pattern.put()
Edit: Also, the Updating you model's schema article discuss strategies you can use to handle schema changes such as this in future. However, that article is quite old and its method requires a web browser to keep hitting a url to trigger the next job to update more records - now that Task Queues exist, you could use a series of Tasks to make the change. The article on using deferred.defer has a framework you could utilise - it does a small amount of work, catches the DeadlineExceededError, and uses the handler to queue a new task which picks up where the current task left off.