I have a custom table in SQL Server called AnimalBreed and maintenance page.
I wish to add User Defined Field support via the KvExt approach instead of
traditional practices involving either CSAnswers or a CacheExtension of the
DAC and underlying "Usr" fields.
Is this possible?
Can it be done for line-level (child) DACs, such as
existing INLocation and INLocationKvExt?
Thanks!
UPDATE:
It appears the feature needs at least:
ensure your table has the NoteID column as uniqueidentifier datatype and the DAC has the corresponding field: Guid? NoteID and [PXNote()] attribute.
In the ASPX, if not ListView, add the following to the PXDataSource tag:
EnableAttributes="true"
By making these changes, I can Manage User Defined Fields, choose Attributes to include, and I can store values to the KvExt table.
I am using Version = 19.205.0023
Sales Order page observation: if I add two UDFs on SO Order Entry page, one is combobox and one is checkbox, setting their values saves just fine, but then updating the combobox and save leads to loss of the checkbox (from true to false), unless you uncheck and recheck prior to the save. Is this a bug?
Maybe technically possible but definitely not recommended to use undocumented feature like KvExt.
If you need to deploy User Defined Fields on a page which already contains them. Configure them manually and then add them in a customization package in the user defined fields section for deployment as described here:
https://help-2019r2.acumatica.com/Help?ScreenId=ShowWiki&pageid=e01f29d3-b6b1-40f4-a2d1-45c9d01bdde3
Example:
Related
First, created a custom field in the PM.PMTask DAC called usrNumberofPanel
Second, created a custom field in the PM.PMProject DAC usrTotalPanels.
Want each of the lines from task to update the total number of panels on the project, so modified the attribute for PM.PMTask.userNumberofPanel and added a PXFormula as shown below to add the SumCalc.
[PXDBDecimal]
[PXUIField(DisplayName="Number of Panels")]
[PXFormula(null, typeof(SumCalc<PX.Objects.CT.ContractExt.usrTotalPanels>))]
Made sure the attributes for the Total Panel and set as follows to make sure no one types into the field.
[PXDBDecimal]
[PXUIField(DisplayName="Total Panels", Enabled = false)]
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
It's a known issue that SumCalc doesn't work properly across DACs that are linked with PXParent relationships.
I can only recommend to use a RowSelected or FieldSelecting graph event handlers to compute the sum instead of a solution involving DAC attributes. You can add a comment explaining the limitation of DAC attributes in the event handler if you are seeking Acumatica ISV Certification for your solution.
I wanted to add an extension in backoffice, so that it is possible for non-programming people to add new objects (of defined types) to the database.
I've almost done it:
I defined two items: offer and tile (their relation is one to many)
What i achieved is there is a possibility to add a new offer in the backoffice.
When you add it, and click to edit, you can also add a tile to this offer - either form drop-down list (if any tiles exist) or create a new tile, which will automatically be added to its table and realted to edited offer.
However, the representation of the drop-down list is unacceptable, see below:
screenshot from backoffice
as you can see, the identifier of an existing tile (within []) is its PK - which clearly is not a good identifier. I would like to inject there instead a value form one of tile's other attributes (which also is unique) so that someone could easily identify which tile to add.
Where is the mechanism responsible for it? How to override it. I tried to override toString method in the tile class, unfortunately to no avail
You need to customize the backoffice-config.xml for your custom Model. For your Tile model, you can use something like:
<context merge-by="type" type="Tile" component="base">
<y:base xmlns:y="http://www.hybris.com/cockpit/config/hybris">
<y:labels>
<y:label>nameOfTile</y:label>
</y:labels>
</y:base>
</context>
I have a case in my customisation project, were I have a PXSelector that I want it to solely act as a lookup, and would not like the users to input any data via the selector and create new records.
I could not find a way to limit this from the attribute itself, therefore I tried to limit it from the events that the control fires. The idea was that in the FieldUpdating Event I would verify whether the value inserted by the user can be found in the selector's key column, if not I would revert it back to the old value. The problem was that cancelling the event had no effect on the selector and since I did not know what the previous value was, I could not revert it back manually.
It sounds like you are trying to use a filter. You need a PXFilter view which then could be used to display data in a grid for example.
You can search the source for "PXFilter to find good examples. One I found is APVendorBalanceEnq which uses public PXFilter<APHistoryFilter> Filter
PXFilter views are not committed to the database. Typically you would create a new DAC for the filter based on your needs but you can use existing DACs that are bound to tables without the fear of the data making it to the database. With the filter you simply use the field values rather than load records into the view.
I have a form with a General Information tab. There are fields in the header and General Info tab that are bound to the same view (and thus should be a part of the same record in the Cache/Database). However, when I insert, it creates 2 records in the same table. One contains only the values for the fields in the header, the other contains only the values for the fields in the tab. I need those to be bound to the same record. What am I missing?
I got around this by declaring a second view, binding that view to the main view through the key, and assigning the tab to use the second view as its data source.
I got the idea from the EmployeeMaint BLC, where the General Info tab is distinguished from the header view using these 2 views:
public PXSelectJoin<EPEmployee, LeftJoin<GL.Branch, On<GL.Branch.bAccountID, Equal<EPEmployee.parentBAccountID>>>, Where<EPEmployee.parentBAccountID, IsNull, Or<MatchWithBranch<GL.Branch.branchID>>>> Employee;
public PXSelect<EPEmployee, Where<EPEmployee.bAccountID, Equal<Current<EPEmployee.bAccountID>>>> CurrentEmployee;
Consider that the header in the EP203000 page uses the Employee view, while the General Info tab uses the CurrentEmployee view.
...however, even though I got this code straight out of their system, I've been personally advised by Acumatica's support team NOT to declare 2 views that use the same primary DAC. Any other suggestions are welcome.
I am designing an application that will display dynamically-generated forms to the user who will then enter values into the form fields and submit those values for persistence. The form represents an employee evaluation.
One use case allows an administrator (from HR) to define the form fields. They should be able to create a new form, add/remove fields from a form and mark a form as 'deleted'.
The second use case is when a manager views the form and enters values into the form fields for a specific employee. They should be able to save the values at any time and recall the saved values when viewing the form again for the same employee.
Finally, when the manager is satisfied with the values they've entered for that employee, they can 'submit' the form data which persists the flattened data into the data warehouse for reporting purposes. When this is done, the 'working' copy of the data is removed so the form will display empty the next time they view it for that employee.
I am not concerned with the front-end at this point and working on the back-end service application that sits between the client and the data store. The application must provide a course-grained interface for all of the behavior required.
My question is how many aggregate roots do I actually have (and from that, how many repositories, etc)? Do I separate the form definition from the form data even though I need both when displaying the form to the user?
I see two main entities, 'EmployeeEvaluationSchema' and 'EmployeeEvaluation'. The 'EmployeeEvaluationSchema' entity would have a collection of 'FieldDefinition' value objects which would contain the properties that define a field, the most basic being the name of the field. The 'EmployeeEvaluation' entity would have a collection of 'FieldValue' value objects which contain the values for each field from the definition. In the simplest case, it would have a field name and value property. Next, the 'EmployeeEvaluation' could have a reference to 'EmployeeEvaluationSchema' to specify which definition the particular evaluation is based on. This can also be used to enforce the form definition in each evaluation. You would have two repositories - one for each entity. If you were to use an ORM such as NHibernate, then when you retrieve a 'EmployeeEvaluation' entity, the associated 'EmployeeEvaluationSchema' would also be retrieved even though there is a dedicated repository for it.
From your description it sounds like your objects don't have any behavior and are simple DTOs. If that is the case maybe you should not bother doing DDD. Can you imagine your entities without having getters? There are better ways to do CRUDish application than DDD. Again this is only valid if your "domain" does not have relevant behavior.