Is it possible by default to merge more than two contacts in Dynamic CRM 2011?
If it is not, what is the workaround needed to make it happen?
I don't think so.
Workaround: You have three contacts, A, B & C.
Merge A and B (A + B = AB).
Merge A and C (AB + C = ABC).
I would also suggest to create an entity that stores the old 1:N relationship as you merge records. For example if you have two contacts A and B and both of them have orders each say X and Y. When you merge A and B the child records (both X and Y) will now be attached to the primary record let's say A. This means you will not be able to ever relate deactivated record B with order Y. Having this stored in custom entity will save you time if you ever need to investigate data.
Related
I am working on creating a tracker, my client has requested the data be on sharepoint list for ease of viewing.
In order to organize the tracker on the Sharepoint List, I would like to generate an autonumber (calculated column) in one column, I've given it the naming convention of Task ID.
For my logic - Task ID (Column A) will be based on another column, known as Title (Column B),
IF column B is not the same then Column A should generate a new number. IF Column B is duplicative then Column A should generate the same number.
I would like the Task ID (Column A) to generate something like this: "TSK-0001"
Is this possible to create for sharepoint list? Thanks again for any help. Let me know if there is still more questions to be answered before figuring out the calculated value.
Note: Column B is a single line of text
I have not tried anything to this point. I have seen that you can generate random numbers via the Left(Right(),X,X) function.
I would like the outcome to show this in Sharepoint List:
[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/quzGg.png
I have a data set of 4 columns and around 2000 rows. I need to produce an easy to use dashboard type product so anyone in can filter down to find the relevant record. Think of it as filtering down eg country - region - city - contact person
I have mocked something up using dependent drop down lists using a much smaller data set but it seems hard to scale this up, is there a better way in Excel of doing this?
PivotTable example, where Data is shown in ColumnsA:E of the same sheet, but could be on a different sheet):
each of id, c, r, c, and p is in ROWS (in order). Each small + and - can be expanded/collapsed independently (in the example all are collapsed except D and elements within D).
Okay, hope this question will be clear enough that I can get an answer. Thanks for the help.
The situation is that I am downloading some information into two different spreadsheets which contains orders from two different stores.
The problem is that between these two stores the model numbers (SKU#) for a lot of items are different even though the product is the same. There is no changing that now. I do have a list of equivalencies. For example, I know that 00-XX-55 is the same in Store 1 as 22-FF-33. There isn't a logical equivalency so I would be setting them manually.
My question is if there is any way I can combine data from two sheets and set up manual equivalencies while doing this? Would excel allow me to manage the data in that way I can join the two unequal SKUs
You need a two-column translation table. Once you have this you can manage combined inventory because you can then determine the total inventory of a single item in both stores.
So in a solution do you want to translate all to the store 1 sku, the store 2 sku, or a third warehouse sku? I guess what I am driving at here is that there needs to be a superior synonym to sort of design around.
To build a translation table you would put the original sku (the sku that you will convert from, sort of the inferior number you do not want to go by for purposes of the summarization) into column A and the master sku into column B. We will call this sheet "converter".
You could either have:
A, B
00-XX-55, 22-FF-33
This could normalize everything to the 22- sku. Or you could do this:
A, B
00-XX-55, 123abc
22-FF-33, 123abc
This way if you want to normalize to a third value rather than either of the stores values.
In your inventory page col C is the sku column so in column D put =iferror(vlookup(C, converter!A:B, 2, false), C) and populate that all the way down. Now in each row you have the original and the master sku next to each other in C and D. If the sku was not found in the converter table then it would just use whatever value was in C. You can then build pivots tables using D to group them on.
In COGNOS, when I create a 1...1 relationship between 2 query subjects A and B, is the relationship always in effect? Or is there a way to say only force the relationship when I am querying A, but when I query B, give me all records from B and ignore A.
This is important because for me, B is a prompt query subject based on a lookup table. so let us say A is a list of all customers and B is a lookup table for Status(Active/Inactive).
When I query B, I just want to see Active/Inactive as prompt values. I select Active and it should bring me only records from A with Active Status.
Is this possilbe?
Cognos uses minimized SQL as default. You can read on it in here:
Cognos - What Is Minimized SQL?
What it basically means is that Cognos picks only the required fields in the SELECT statement.
So, if you picked for prompt values fields from table B, it will only use (for Prompt page only) table B.
When you execute the report assuming you have values from both table A and B, it will do the join
What is the best approach to design a data model based on a generalization relationship. For example imagine there is a based class A and two derived class B and C that inherit class A. Now I want design data model. I have three choices
1) Create Table A and having a type column for specifying B and C data.
2) Create Table A, B and C Just like my class diagram and relate B and C to A.
3) Create Table A, B and C but don't relate B and C to A.
Any clue would be appreciated
Check out this article. Although it is written for JPA, it tells you the pros and cons of each of the strategies you mentioned.