I'm adding 4 new checkboxes to an entity and its form. There are already instances of this entity created in production. I need to have these checkboxes defaulted to checked on these existing entity instances. I set the default value of the field but apparently this only gets used when a new instance of the entity is created. Is there an easy way to set these on all the existing instances?
I could use a one-off workflow, but I don't know how many instances of this entity there are and due to auditing requirements I can't access the production environment.
You could create execute some JavaScript on the load of the form. Of course, this wouldn't update all of the values in the database, but it would update it before a user is able to view it. Do you need all the values in the database defaulted, or will java script work?
Edit
Your best options are either an update multiple ( you can increase the number of records an advanced find returns to 250 records per page) and continue to update all records manually, or perform a batch update. See this related SO question.
There's another way, too. You could write a console application that connects to your server (not that hard if you've done it before and don't have to make it general). Then, you simply execute an update on the service fetching all the existing entities and updating them after the change is made.
As #Daryl says, there's probably a way to do that from the GUI too, but real programmers do it the hard way. :)
Of course I'm kidding. I just love to type code, hehe. Never the less - once you start coding, you have full freedom to affect the data any way you need, forever.
You can do this by exporting the records and change the value for the field and then re-import back it.
Related
i already searched for an answer but without finding one to my specific problem.
i am using core data to save profiles and display them in a table. since core data is already set up, i wanted to use it also for storing application settings.
i've set up the model, set up an array controller to retrive the data, but now, i have no clue on how to connect this array controller to a single textbox.
i try to explain: theoretically my model could have more entries, just like the profile model has. but it has just one with some settings, as if a database would have only a single data row. is there a way i can specify that i want the data contained in the very first row? dont know if my question is clear, its not so easy to explain. please if it was not clear let me knwo and i will try to explain it again.
thanks
igor
Don't put application settings in Core Data. Any time you find yourself thinking that you want just one instance (row) for an entity, you're doing it wrong.
Cocoa Touch provides a class called NSUserDefaults specifically for the purpose of saving app settings. Look into that, it's almost certainly what you want.
I am wondering about the model-first approach. I wish to design a new database using the model designer in VS2012. The new features of the model designer such as coloring and splitting up model sections are wonderful. Hopefully there will be purpose for using the model designer beyond initially creating a new database.
I would like to perform the following steps...
using the model designer, visually design and push the model to create the initial database and a table
add data to the table
make a change to the table in the model designer (e.g. add a field)
push the changes to the database (i.e. update the database)
NOT LOSE MY DATA FROM STEP 2. Also, just to clear any confusion... did I mention that I DON'T WISH TO LOSE THE DATA?
Please, please tell me this obvious need (i.e. the need to evolve the the tables and their fields without losing data, starting from scratch) has not been overlooked in iteration FIVE of EF.
This page on EF (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/ee712907.aspx) makes things sound that the developer has equal choices between coding first and modeling first. To me, the intro video on the page creates a similar impression.
It would be nice if there were a simple menu option or better yet just a way to establish "automatic pushes to DB" upon changes to the model. That way whenever changes are made and the SAVE button is clicked, a dialog could appear "Update database?".
I see that using code-first there is a migrations option. I cannot seem to find the same for model-first. And I don't understand why this wouldn't be possible... after all the code that I would have written in code-first does indeed exist - it was created by the model-first code generation.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed in hopes someone will have a simple solution, perhaps something I've just overlooked and all this rambling/venting is in vain. :-)
You really have to use code-first if you want to modify your database when the model changes. Even then it's not some magical automated process but you'll have to script the changes.
With model first your best option is to generate a new database each time and create a change script (DDL) by using a tool like Redgate's SQL Compare or a Visual Studio Sql Server Database Project.
I'd like to add that it is virtually impossible to synchronize a database automatically with a model. Some changes require manual intervention, e.g. removing a field and adding another field cannot be distinguished from renaming/retyping a field. Some changed can easily be done in a model, but would require a table rebuild script in Sql Server (e.g. changing field order), or a combination of modified content and structure (e.g. making a field not null, adding a foreign key).
At the moment the only thing to do is:
Copy your database file... (backup)
Allow EF to recreate the database according to model
Per table copy-paste your records from backup to your new db.
This is not that easy as you need to copy paste in a specific order because of relations and it will only be good for minor changes such as adding columns and new tables or removing scalar columns or removing tables.
But I am certain that this is the begining of a correct approach to deal with the problem which later on can be automated by writing a more generic migration app between two databases which share same table names and relations.
Deeper problems begin when the relations are not the same / table names changed / column names changed.
This is a simple requirement: I want to add a set of strings to Accounts in Dynamics 2011. The string are external IDs for other systems. All the strings should be unique accross all entities.
The only way I can see to do this is define the strings as entities (say 'ExternalCode') and set up a 1:N reslationship between Account and ExternalCode, but this seems incredibly overweight. Also, defining as an entity insists thhat I give the 'ExternalCode' a name, which it obviously doesn't have.
What's the best way to implement this?
Thank you
Ryan
It may seem overweight, but think about entities as if it were tables. Would you create a second table inside MS SQL? If so, then you should create another entity. CRM is very well optimized so I wouldn't worry about this additional overhead.
Alternatively, you could always carry the GUID in the other system.
How are these unique references entering your CRM system. Are you importing the data from each of the external systems? If so I assume the references are unique in the external system? Once imported you want to make sure that any of these references are not duplicated?
Additionally, how many strings are we talking about here? If it is a small number then it would make sense to just define attributes to manage them and check for duplicates in one of the following ways:-
1) Some javascript could be used to make an oData query to confirm the 'uniqueness' of your external reference number before the record is commited. (But, this is not sufficient is records will be created programmatically in the system also).
2) A plug-in which fires on pre-create to again query the system for other records which match the same unique reference numbers and handles the event of a match accordingly.
However, if there are many of them then it may make more sense to define a separate entity as you say and then as above you could associate a new 'reference record' with the entity via a plug-in, but again, check if the record already exists and then either handle an exception or merely associate with an existing record if that is appropriate.
I think they key is what you want to do if you do find a duplicate and how these records are going to be created in the system (e.g. via UI or programmatically or potentially both).
Happy to provide some more assistance if you have some more details.
I have a few large forms that I need to provide visual cues about the before/after state, so the person approving the form can see what has been modified (not the previous answer, tho that would be a plus). This is currently being done with an extra column for each column of data (Name, Name_IsModified, Phone, Phone_IsModified, etc...). I'm curious if there was a better way to getting around this, leveraging SubSonic?
The initial load is done by grabbing data from 6 source tables on 3 different servers. This data is saved in the form tables, where it resides until it is approved by various people who will manually update it into the live systems that then update the 6 source tables. The visual cues are primarily used during the approval process, but are occassionaly used to research when a change has been made in the past.
Since I have to make a bunch of updates, I thought this might be a good time to break away from the legacy 2000+ lines of code, making my job a bit easier!!!
Thanks,
Zach
All of the properties on SubSonic objects are actually collections and you can pull this out and review changes - all without reflection.
We have a "DirtyColumns" collection (not sure if it's public or not) that we use to run updates - this would be the thing you'd want to have a look at.
I have a habit of keeping a separate Migration Class for every custom Type or Part. A lot of the time I want to attach a Taxonomy Field for the same Taxonomy to several custom Parts. Since I'm not sure which migration will run first, I have to check if the Taxonomy already exists in each migration and create it if it doesn't, leading to a lot of duplicate code. I could move my code into a service for the sake of re-usability/maintainability but it would be easier still if I knew for sure which migration was going to get executed first.
They should be running in order of dependency, starting with the dependency, ending with the module depending on it.
However, for this sort of thing, you might want to try recipes rather than migrations.