I am writing suitescripts (currently 2.1) and one thing I am trying to do is to know what type of record a particular field on a record is. In suiteTalk this can be done via the recordRef's .type being looked at such as a Sales order's Entity field is a record ref that would say entity and you can know the record type from there. (Similarly for a custom record a transaction may have a field which may have a type of custRec_MyCustSpecialField, etc). In suitescript when i get a field from a given record and try to look at it's .type it will give me integer, string, select etc. As in the event of the Entity field it's type is "select" and not really "Entity" and I can't find any way to get that true type. I wondered if anyone had any ideas. The idea here is that I wanted this to be dynamic so no matter what field I was trying to look at, I could further dig into it (for example maybe trying to find a field/fields that reside in that reference fields values (Maybe an address's state for example) but I can't find a way to do that. I realize the record catalog can be of assistance here if you were looking on your own but I was hoping to find a way inside my script itself.
I would use record.load or record.getFields but both of those require both an ID (which i think i could provide) as well as a type which is what I am struggling to be able to generate or find in scripting.
Related
According to the help pop up:
ID
This field's value represents the script ID, used to identify this
record for scripting purposes. It is a text field.
Internal ID
This field's value is a read-only system-generated unique identifier.
It is an integer field.
Both fields seem to uniquely identity a record type.
One is a string, one a integer.
The string ID is used for searches and
loading of records, but I've also seen Internal ID used when
referring to a record type from a lists point of view.
Can anyone provide the reasoning behind having two identifiers and when to use one versus the other when scripting?
The major difference is that you (as the creator of a custom record or script) are in complete control of the text ID. You can establish patterns and best practices for defining these IDs, and it will make it very easy for developers to identify record types just by looking at the string ID. You have no control over the numeric ID. When looking at code, it is much easier for me to determine what records I am referring to if it looks like:
nlapiSearchRecord('customrecord_product', null, filters, columns);
nlapiResolveURL('SUITELET', 'customscript_sl_orderservice', 'customdeploy_sl_orderservice')
as opposed to looking at:
nlapiSearchRecord(118, null, filters, columns);
nlapiResolveURL('SUITELET', 13, 1)
I'm not even sure the second nlapiSearchRecord actually works, but I know that nlapiResolveURL can be written that way.
That said, if you simply let NetSuite generate the text ID, you'll end up with generic IDs like customrecord1, which I find no more useful than the numeric ID. It is a good practice to explicitly specify your own IDs.
Furthermore, the numeric ID can vary between environments (e.g. Sandbox could be different than Production, until a subsequent refresh occurs). If you are following good migration practices, then the text ID should never vary between environments, so your code would not have to make any kind of decision on which ID to use based on environment.
Rarely have I found myself referencing any record, whether native or custom, by its numeric ID; scripts are always using the text ID to reference a record type.
Is this possible to set or override the internalid of a custom record type ?
The internalid is self generated, but I want to try to set inernalid value from a cvs field.
I do not believe you can override the internalid of any record instance, even a custom one. You can, however, use the externalid field that I believe every record has if you want to specify a "secondary" identifier for the record.
You cannot override the internal ID of a record. As mentioned in a previous response to your question, you can (and should) set the external ID field on the NetSuite records to equal the primary key of the data being imported.
On future imports that update NetSuite data, you simply map the key field of the imported data to the external ID field in NetSuite. You can ignore the internal ID field on those future imports, as Netsuite will match up the records based upon the external ID.
This is the proper way to do this - I've seen tons of situations where people did not understand the external ID concept, and created huge, long term maintenance issues by not following this simple solution.
OK. Given your feedback, why not create another custom field on the customer record that references the lookup value in the custom record?
The field type should be the same as the field type of the lookup value, with "store value" checkbox unchecked. On the Sourcing and Filtering tab, you specify the custom record type and field to reference. Think of it as a SQL join of sorts between the customer record and custom record.
Then, you should be able to do what you want with 2 getCurrentAttribute tags:
<%= getcurrentattribute('cusomter', 'custentity_mappingid')%>
<%= getcurrentattribute('cusomter', 'custentity_mappingvalue')%>
BTW, your custom field internal IDs look a little odd. They should start with 'custentity', and 'custrecord', respectively. My code above reflects what you'd normally expect from NetSuite.
You can set ExternalId and if you want to get record then you can use callGetRecordByExternalId .
public ReadResponse callGetRecordByExternalId(String externalId, RecordType recordType) throws RemoteException {
return this.callGetRecord(Utils.createRecordRefWithExternalId(externalId, recordType));
}
I have an odd issue.
I have client that wants a sharepoint list what is populated from a WCFService. That part is working quite well.
I have a bdcmodel that is mapping the WCF data and I can create an external list from the bdcmodel as well so that is working fine.
The issue I have is that one of the properties in the model is actually a collection of entities called Attributes. The objects in this collection simply have 2 properties Name and Value so really they are just a key value pair.
The client wants to see the list of attributes of the parent entity in the external list. So there would be an Attributes column and within that column would be the list of attributes for each parent object.
Is there even a way to do this? I am looking into Custom Field Types, but it seems like these are really intended to be singular values.
How would I create a list within and external list?
Any help anyone can give would be great even if its just to tell me that there really isn't a stable way to do this so I can go back to the client and tell them we will need to build a custom list to support this because the OOB external list and custom fields and custom field types won't support this kind of nested listing.
I decided to set up the custom field as a string and when I get my collection in from the BdcModel I am serializing it to JSON and then passing it to the field. When the field is viewed in display, edit or new I have overridden the FieldRenderingControl and I am tiling the collection out that way.
I'm in the middle of trying to copy a custom content type from one web to another. I've googled around and found some examples that use FieldLinks and Fields. I'm kind of lost as to which one to use, since when I get the FieldLinks from my source web, I get 3 fields; while retrieving from Fields only returned me 2 fields... the custom field is missing. I'm pretty darn sure that I've added the fields at the proper level since I did it via the interface. But when retrieving it using code... the numbers just don't add up.
So besides from that strange problem, I want to know what is the difference between FieldLinks and Fields, and when dealing with them in Content Types (programmatically) which one should I use?
Thanks.
SPFields are fields themselves, while SPFieldLinks are references to the fields. This is a good read that will explain things in detail. In general practice, it is safer to use SPFieldLinks when you are working on the actual content type definition. However, I'll give a quick summary here.
Lists and Webs contain the actual fields with field data. A content type, on the other hand, only holds Field Reference, which simply points at the corresponding field in the list or web. This gets a bit confusing, because content types have both an SPFieldLinkCollection and an SPFieldCollection.
The SPFieldLinkCollection is used in the actual definition of the content type, and is what you would want to use in your situation of copying a content type from one web to another. SPFieldLinks correspond to the actual elements in the XML Schema for a content type.
Comparatively, when you call on a content type's SPFieldCollection and retrieve a Field from it, what is actually happening is that the content type is checking the corresponding field reference, and then looking up in the list/web to get the actual field. Basically, think of the SPFieldCollection in the same way a lookup works: it is worthless without both the lookup value and the lookup source.
I am doing a workflow for a document library. I put a OnWorkflowItemChanged, and I want to get the value of the column which is changed. I use the workflowProperties.Item["name"] and use the afterProperties. But when I use the workflowProperties.Item["column name"], I still got the original value. When I use the afterProperties, it's NULL.
Then I make another workflow that is the same as above for a list. I can use the workflowProperties.Item["column name"] to get the new value in OnWorkflowItemChanged.
Has anyone come across this problem before? Can you give me some help?
The question seems to mix up Item with ExtendedProperties. As to why a difference is seen on a List/Document Lib, it might have something to do with versionining or perhaps the internal serialization is different. Anyway, some of my experience is outline below. I hope it may be of use:
Use the GUID (as a Guid object, not a string) to access the Before / After ExtendedProperties field. Using the Display Name in the ExtendedProperties will not work. The documentation on it is wrong. You can use SPList.Fields to go from Display Name to Column ID (Guid).
I bind all "Before" to MyWhatever_PreviousProperties and all "After" to MyWhatever_Properties, only accessing MyWhatever_[Previous]Properties after the appropriate event(s)).