I am required to create a Java Script but unable to figure on how to proceed as I don't have that much of coding idea in OIM, can someone assist(below I have mentioned the scenario)
Scenario:
In OIM User Attribute Page, there is a User Field: 'Job Code' now we have experienced that there are some issues we are facing.
From the trusted source we are getting the correct data but as soon as it reaches OIM for few users we are getting random incorrect value. Value should be numbers (123456) which is present in the Database too and valid but for few we are receiving values like E?401#q something like this.
We are required to place a check to find users who are having these invalid Job Code entry.
Once detected, we need to trigger a email to the concerned team based on the User Type (Employee or Contractor) for employee it should trigger an email to a respective team and for Contractor we have to trigger to a different team to take action.
So, I believe we have to place two conditions here, can someone assist.
If you believe it only happens during trusted source reconciliation, then you can create Post-Process Handler on User Create/Modify operation to check the value which was posted into the DB as a result of recon event.
From this handler you can do all the things you need to do: mailing, fixing, etc.
For notification purposes I'd recommend to use built-in NotificationService, though it might be bit daunting, if you have little experience in OIM development. As an alternative you can do java mailing.
If you are not sure about the moment, when this "spoiling" happens, you can create a scheduled task, to be executed periodically, which will check JobCode values, to report invalid ones.
Related
SuiteScript v1, but I'll switch to SS v2 if it's the only way to make it work.
I've tried:
salesOrder.setFieldText('shipcarrier', 'More');
salesOrder.setFieldValue('shipcarrier', 'noups');
salesOrder.setFieldValue('shipcarrier', 'nonups');
But UPS is always selected once the record is saved.
shipcarrier is a bit of an odd thing.
I'm not sure it is actually sticky - in some contexts it appears to be and in some it doesn't.
It appears to be pointless to set unless you are also setting shipmethod.
salesOrder.setFieldValue('shipcarrier', ffShipCarrier); //'ups' || 'nonups'
salesOrder.setFieldValue('shipmethod', ffShipMethod)
PS from cja: My conclusion/solution: Setting shipmode does nothing unless recordmode is dynamic and shipmethod is set at the same time. If both those conditions are met then the value shipmode will be updated.
NetSuite support have warned me against using this solution:
"With regards to your concern, I am able to set the Ship carrier field on the Sales Order record in the client script(nlapiSetFieldValue('shipcarrier', 'ups');) however I was unable to set the value of the field in the server side script. Upon further investigation, the field (ship carrier) isn't exposed in the Record browser hence the field isn't officially exposed for scripting needs. Please refer to the following Suiteanswer article for your reference.
"I am really glad that the solution worked for you perfectly. In order to explain further, I would say it is not advisable to write scripts using unexposed fields in the record browser. It may change in the future without any prior notification and can cause problem and NetSuite will not hold any kind of responsibility for the same.
"User groups contains simple solution to complex tips and tricks provided by the experienced customers. On the other hand, NetSuite Support are stickly adhering to the official documentation/processes to assist any of its customer. The solutions provided in the User groups are totally upto the consent of the customers and can be implemented at their own risk if not confirmed in the official documentation or NetSuite Support."
You need to use setFieldValue and pass the internal id of the "More" ship carrier.
nlapiSubmitField('salesorder', recordid, 'shipcarrier', 'nonups');
I am using cucumber in combination with selenium for testing the java web application. The following is the Scenario that we have
get generate PIN page
enter user name
enter password
click on submit button
Now it generates a PIN in the database depending on so many calculations. now i need that particular PIN, to give it as an input to a different scenario. how can i achieve this? Thanks in advance.
I would assume that you can access the PIN within the database after the above scenario. That being the case, I would add one more step to the scenario that acquires - and confirms - that the PIN was indeed generated. At that point, you can store the PIN in a local variable and then use it within the next scenario.
So your first scenario would look like this:
Get generate PIN page
Enter user name
Enter password
Click on submit button
Confirm PIN number in database
The last step would not be done within Selenium, but via an API call or some other means to acquire the PIN from the database. It would confirm the PIN (e.g.; regex=/^\d{4}$/) and then store it in a local variable, say something like #customer_pin (assuming you're using Ruby).
Your next scenario would start off something like this:
Get generate login page
Enter customer ID
Enter customer PIN
etc
When you hit the "Enter customer PIN" step, you pull it from the locally stored variable (#customer_pin).
My advice is that when executing this second scenario, you confirm that you have a legitimate PIN within your locally stored variable, in case someone should run this scenario out of sequence. You could do this by using a global variable and running a "Before" hook in your features/support/env.rb file like this:
Before do
$dunit ||= false
return if $dunit
$customer_pin = nil
$dunit = true
end
In this case, I use $customer_pin instead of #customer_pin in order to make the variable globally accessible. Then after running your first scenario, $customer_pin would be assigned to a legitimate value so that it can be used in any subsequent scenarios. Subsequent scenarios would use the regex expression to confirm it has a legitimate value, and raise/throw an exception if not.
I would divide your problem into two.
One that verifies the pin generation as this may be important for your stakeholders.
One that implement a backdoor to support other cases where a valid PIN is needed. Maybe an API that is able to generate or retrieve a valid pin number. Maybe create and store the PIN in the database without touching the system from the outside. I would use this way to retrieve a PIN whenever I need a valid PIN for other scenarios.
The technical solution on how to get a valid PIN isn't too important. What is important is to decouple the execution order of the scenarios. The execution order of the scenarios is undefined. Each scenario must be able to be executed in isolation and in random order.
Coupling scenarios is a well known anti pattern described here and here.
To Solve this kind of situation you have to use Cucumber Background feature, This is run before each step. and will generate a PIN based on given inputs and then generated PIN will be available across the scenarios.
Find feature file definition based on your requirements.
Background:
Given I Get generate PIN page
Then I Enter user name
And Enter password
And I Click on submit button
And I Confirm PIN number in database
#TC01_GetUserInformationByPinTest #NoBrowser
Scenario: Get User information by generated PIN from background.
Given I Get User Information by using generated PIN
And I verified that given username is same as response Data
I believe this will help you to solve your issue.
I want to trigger a NetSuite workflow when the user sets the value of a field, but I don't want to have them submit first. The Workflow state builder looks like it has useful options but I can't get it to work.
There's some useful looking blog posts around but a lot of them seem out of date.
Update - more info
My primary issue is this one: Restrict what customers an employee can see (NetSuite)
The hack I'm currently looking at is populating a custom Transaction Column Field that I've added to a custom Time Recording form. The idea is to load this field on the UI with only valid projects (not customers as well), and this I have been able to do.
The problem is I still (as far as I can tell) still need to populate the "Customer" field, which is mandatory; I'm also assuming that if I don't do that then any time that is recorded won't go against the project. I had thought that if the user selects the project they want then I can populate the customer field with that value. I hate this as an approach but I can't see how else to do it. I do have coding experience (including JavaScript) but haven't made the leap into SuiteScript yet.
You won't be able to do this in a Workflow, as they are currently limited to only work with body level fields and cannot modify Transaction Column Fields (aka sublists).
You should be able to achieve this with a Client Side Script though.
Source (Netsuite login required).
Sublist changes will be available for transactions in the 2018.1 release sometime in Feb/Mar.
Working in Nintex, I have a workflow that is kicked off when a form is saved. The workflow generates a PDF version of the Nintex form (we need actual signatures - digital in the future, fingers crossed). This is done by updating a word template, then converting to PDF.
When the word document is updated, the 'assigned to:' field is getting an AD account name instead of the user's First, Last name (which is expected). Now I'm trying to format it so it's more appropriate to the Hard Copy (in the Nintex form, it shows as Last, First).
I used a Query User Profile action, passed it the same variable I was using to hold the form's 'assigned to' value, and then used the drop down menu to choose the user profile variables I wanted (First, Last, also: username, account name, Distinguish name). All values are generating empty strings.
I've incrementally tried handing the values to variables that are of type String, Person, or Collection. I also handed it my username instead of the variable and set my account info for the login. I've always selected values, so I don't think it's a typo.
I'm at a loss... the workflow emails the user at the end, so it's getting the data. I hope that's enough info, I'm new to SP/Nintex so it could be a rookie mistake. Any help is appreciated.
Thank you!
I've seen issues where the User Profile Service properties have not been configured adequately, which leads to a lot of empty variables when running an LDAP Query action for AD attributes.
If this is the case, then one approach is to get the Farm admin (if you don't have access) to take a look at Manage User Profiles in Central Admin and see what AD attributes are mapped to the user profile. If mappings are changed you'll need to run a full sync to bring over the values. It can be inconsistent in my experience as well.
How do I create an activity feed rule that writes an auto post on the Record Wall of a case when an email is automatically assigned (made Regarding) to that case because of its tracking token?
Our users are having trouble realising that there is something new to look at in the case and this would go a long way to preventing them from missing an important event.
EDIT:
These solutions have already been considered
They don't want follow up tasks.
The email is already displayed in a grid on the case
They don't want more Queues to check.
They don't want more emails to deal with.
This user is recalcitrant to say the least...they only want a note to appear on the record wall of the case.
To accomplish this with little/no coding, you could:
1) create a task or other activity that would show up on the activity feed. This is easily accomplished via workflow.
2) display the email/other activities in a grid on the case.
3) also set up queues to handle this.
4) send an email to the owner of the case when an activity gets appended to it.
There are a lot of options to resolve the issue of notifying users that their case has additional info.
EDIT:
Your comments are accurate and well received. Can't you do something as simple as create a workflow that will create a post when an email is created and/or when set regarding field changes. Then you can check within the workflow that the set regarding is for a case or else cancel the workflow. Within the post record, set the type to auto and the regarding to the same regarding as the email. (I was unable to get the record wall part working in my local VM, so I assumed that any post record regarding the case should show up in the case, but I couldn't test that).