I am trying to build a Pipeline which queries out my Sales records (as one Read activity)
Now in this Sales schema there are fields that reference a People table however its not a direct connection as there is a Many-to-Many relationship.
So what I need to do is query my PeopleToSales table for all related records and populate them in a flat structure in my subsequent JSON object.
How can I built two objects together and join them based on Sales ID? Also in the event there are multiple matches how can I choose the first one?
You can read both the Sales records and the PeopleToSales table and then use the Join snap to merge the relevant documents based on whatever ID that defines the relation between them.
After that, you can use the Group By Fields snap to group the documents based on Sales ID.
You can add the Sales ID field (say - $sales_id) in the Fields list in the settings and it will group documents based on the Sales ID.
Also, when using the Group By Fields snap, you first have to sort the documents based on the keys. So, use a Sort snap before the Group By Fields snap.
As far as getting the first object is concerned, after the group-by, you can just get the 0th element of the list (say group[0]).
Please refer to - SnapLogic Docs - Group By Fields
Related
I am build a sharepoint document list that will be queried by a 3rd party app we are building.
The document list will hold around 5-10k documents. I need to tag each document with a related customer ID's (we have thousands of customers). Multiple customers will be tagged against a single document.
I will be querying the document list via sharepoint url to return documents based on customer ID in custom view.
What is the best way to create a one to many relationship between a document and multiple references/ID's?
#user15092184,
You can create a list for the customers, then add a multiple-value lookup column to the document library and references the customer lists.
you can select 'Allow multiple values' to create a one to many relationship.
https://sharepointmaven.com/how-to-create-a-lookup-column-in-sharepoint/
BR
We want to have a sales order dashboard where we only show orders for certain sales people based on the logged in user. For example, we have sales people BB and CR who share an assistant TP. BB can see his orders on the dashboard. CR can see his orders on the dashboard. TP can see orders for both of them on his dashboard. We also have people outside of sales who need to see all orders. We want to do all of this without having to create a bunch of custom dashboards. We wanted to maintain 2 dashboards - one filtered one for sales people and one unfiltered one for everyone else.
We have gotten close to solution by using a generic inquiry. We created custom fields on the salesperson that point back to a logged in user (UserID1 and UserID2). Multiple custom fields were used because a single sales person could be visible to 2 people. We then joined SOOrder to SalesPerson inside our GI. We then wanted to join the Users table on (SalesPerson.UserID1 = Users.PKID AND SalesPerson.UserID1 = #me) OR (SalesPerson.UserID2 = Users.PKID AND SalesPerson.UserID2 = #me). That would allow us to create a filter where Users.PKID is not null to limit the view for sales people and then not use any filter on the non-sales dashboard.
The problem is that #me is not available on the Relations section. It is only available on the conditions section. We tried to just have the join of SalesPerson.UserID1 = Users.PKID or SalesPerson.UserID2 = Users.PKID and then creating the condition for the #me portion. The issue there is that it only shows records with a match. That won't work for non-sales people.
Is there some way to include #me or an equivalent on the relations tab? Any better way to accomplish this?
Built-in variables like '#me' aren't well documented which raises questions about support of this feature.
Try this instead:
In generic inquiry TABLES tab, add table 'PX.Data.AccessInfo'.
In PARAMETERS tab, add a new parameter (ex: 'P1') and set the Schema Field value to 'Accessinfo.UserID' (use 'Accessinfo' or the alias for that table declared in TABLES tab).
In the RELATIONS tab in the join condition Child Field you can reference the '[P1]' variable.
Accessinfo DAC contains current record of the logged in user and reflects the information you see when you click your profile in the top right of Acumatica pages. If the solution doesn't work right away you can debug it with the Request Profiler page to look up the generated SQL query for the GI.
I'm creating a compliance mailing for my organization, the mailing will include merge fields that identify the office location, physician, and SiteId. The mailing will also include a table of information that is dependent upon the particular SiteId.
I'd like to use the import table function of MS word and set up a query that references a merged field (SiteId) so that the inserted tables populate the appropriate data for the particular site. I'm unable to do this.
How can I set up this document so that I can import only records from my source (an ms access query) that match the SiteId merge field?
Word's mail merge does not support one-to-many relationships. There are ways to coerce it, but only one of them can yield a table as a result and over the years it has become less and less reliable as Microsoft has not regarded it as important enough to maintain...
What you need to do is set up a query that provides ONLY the information you want displayed in the table, plus the key (SiteId). It's best to sort it so that all the SiteId entries list together, and are in the order the data will come through in the mail merge data source.
On the Insert tab go to Text/Quick Parts/Insert Field and select the Database field from the list in the dialog box. Click "Insert Database" and follow the instructions in the dialog box to link in the data. Be sure to set the Query Options to filter on the first SiteId from the data source. When you "Insert Data" make sure to choose the option to "Insert as a field".
This inserts a DATABASE field in the document which you can see by toggling field codes (Alt+F9). The field code can be edited and what you need to do is substitute the literal SiteId value you entered for the query with its corresponding MergeField.
When you execute the merge to a new document that should generate a table for each data record corresponding to the SiteId for the record. But, as I said, Microsoft hasn't done a great job of maintaining this, so it may require quite a bit of tweaking and experimenting.
If the results are not satisfactory then you should give up the idea of mail merge and use automation code to generate and populate the documents.
You can find more (albeit somewhat out-dated) information on this topic at http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister/mergfaq1.htm
I am having a little trouble figuring out how to properly filter from the one side through a many relationship and back through to another one sided table.
The issue is that a Customer can have multiple accounts which can have multiple Customers.
In the attached image I am trying to filter from a Center# through the All Customer level and then add a filter on the List table to get the correct open accounts.
So the example would be I am looking for all Customers that are associated with Center A and are attached to an account type A.
The inactive one to many relationship from All Cust -> All Accts is what needs to be active instead of the All Cust -> Open table.
I am currently using:
CALCULATE([Cust Enrolls],CROSSFILTER('All Cust'[All Customer Number],'Open'[Primary Customer Number],Both))
to be able to filter for the account type, but that table's customer is just the single primary customer.
Any ideas on how I should either rework the model or how to create the correct measure?
Model
I would recommend re-working your Data Model so that you have a clear 1-M for each dimension table to your fact tables. This will save you a tremendous amount of time and headaches now and in the future by structuring your data properly.
I have multiple type of posts (Post, Product, Image) and one category option that has multiple categories. I want to assign multiple category to post but i don't want to create more than one table for store relationship information with post type.