I'm trying to create a N:N Relationship between the lead entity and a custom entity(lets name it system).
This works without problem.
If I'm trying to add 'system' records to lead it does not work,
I'm also not getting any error or info. It just don't adds the record.
If I'm trying to do the same on my custom entity(system) i can add any Lead i want.
is there any restriction on lead that prevents this?
edit
looks like its only related to lead other entities work. Any many to many relationships on lead do not work. i have deactivated all update and associate plugins but still no help.
and on other CRm it did work :-(
Related
I'm looking for a PHP script that will allow me to easily manage 'MySql' tables. By managing I mean not their creation but the possibility of adding new records, modifying and deleting them.
It must be possible to specify for each user which tables he will have access to and with which modalities (insertion only, modification only, etc.).
For each user I will also have to specify whether he will be able to see all or some of the columns in the table and with which permissions.
Also I'll need to know who did what, a sort of global change LOG.
My idea was to have a back-end in which I specified the users and how to access the various tables/columns and a front-end for the users.
In the front-end users will be able to add/modify/delete records and data they are allowed and the ability to filter and/or sort the various records.
I know I could use some PHP frameworks or rely on CMS but I have to write a lot of code by hand and it seems hardly credible that such a product is not already available.
Does anyone know if there is something like this?
I had tried starting with PHP frameworks but implementing everything from scratch stopped me.
I expect there is already something available.
Thanks.
Davide.
I have an app that collects data. It's a survey of sorts. The questions for the survey can be managed by a GUI tied to database tables in the app. But the actual answers to the questions get stored in a single table: observations. I've considered an EAV model instead, but let's set that aside for the moment. The Observation entity has over 900 properties because the survey has around that many questions. This has worked ok so far, even if it is a bit ugly in spots. But now I'm working on making this app power a new survey from a new client. It's key that I maintain the same codebase and the same git repository, but the app needs to accommodate another 700 observation properties. I added them to my entity and attempted to do a migration to create the new database columns. But alas, I hit an error telling me that the row size is too large. Too many columns!
The workaround I'd like to explore is to have multiple versions of the Observation entity. I could have one for each survey and use a config file to select the right one. But I want the selected entity to sit in the same spot in the ORM hierarchy. So, for example. If I call
$subscription->getObservation()
I want it to return the right kind of
observation based on the config. It's ok if each install ends up having a table for each survey because all but one of those tables would have 0 rows.
As mentioned above, another option would be to abandon the wide-table design and use EAV. But that approach has some major downsides.
I know that it cannot yet. But having many-to-many is a common thing in my opinion and I would like to ask some suggestions or opinions about the method I follow.
I work on a blog engine where the user can create blog entries and she/he can add multiple tags to it. There are Blog_Entry, Tag and a Blog_Entry_Tag tables. The Blog_Entry table has navigation property to Blog_Entry_Tag table. The Tag table also has navigation property to Blog_Entry_Tag table. Both are one-to many relation. Between Tag and Blog_Entry tables there is no any navigation property. The joining table exposed to Breeze.
When creating and editing new entry the blog entry related data managed separately from the tag related data. At saving I have to manage that the proper data will be inserted into the Blog_Entry_Tag table. The save logic is complicated but managable however, I can't leverage on Breeze great capabilities.
How do you manage situation like this? I know the question might be general, but I went through the available documentation and whatever was displayed in Google without getting closer to the solution or getting even smarter. If you have blogs, examples about this case I really appreciate your help!
Take a look at these two documents, hopefully one of these may offer some help.
http://www.getbreezenow.com/documentation/presenting-many-many
breeze: many-to-many issues when saving
I want to build a small Access database to better keep track of the companies we are looking at. I read Access 2010 Inside Out by Conrad/Viescas, did a lot of their examples and had the feeling I understood the basics, so I started with my own data base. Now the struggle begins, I think I have a basic misunderstanding here.
The relation I started with is quite simple: Each company we look at can have listed peers that we want to use to compare this company to. Of course, each company can have many peers and each peer can be the peer of many of our companies. So I modelled this relation as a many-to-many relationship:
Next, I created the form for a company, which looked something like this:
I related the subform I used to show the peers with a query that is based on tblPeersCompanies_1 and gives some additional information. What I now want from a user perspective is straightforward: A user should simply add peers to this subform for the company he is currently viewing. Access should then automatically update tblPeersCompanies_1 and tblPeers_1. The peers really serve no other purpose than to relate them to a company.
However, I struggle implementing this. Adding a new peer to the subform does not work, simply because it is not based on tblPeers_1 and if I enter the information there, Access notices that the peer is not in that table yet. (That is at least what I think the problem is). How can this be achieved though? I don't want the user to open another form, enter the peer first, go back to this form, type the peer again and the other related information. I hope that there must a simple way to do that automatically. Or is this indeed not so simple.
In summary, the question probably can be phrased as: "How to add records to a matching table and a related one-table on the fly in a form?"
Thanks to the great comment by #Remou, I found a solution to this problem. It contais three steps:
Use a combo box as outlined in another SO post
Use this function to automatically enter new records in case the peer is missing. Call this function in the "On Not in List" event
Show other values from tblPeers by linking it to the selected value in the combo box, as explained here
I have to say, this is much harder than I hoped it to be. Let's hope that the learning curve is steep and that it will at least be easy to use for the user and quite robust.
I have a lookup list that is used in a custom solution to provide information about a specific location. This list includes columns of type People and Groups.
Given the quantity of locations that will be available I'd be very keen that the list is maintained and imported from an Access database. I do something similar with my configurations list which works great. It just means I can rapidly deploy all configurations across different environments.
The problem I have encountered is that it doesn't seem to handle columns of data type People and Groups. The lookup is not available in Access. From what little i have found online, I'd not even sure if this is possible. This article suggests that Access automatically creates a link to the USerInfo table. Even with this link, I cannot look up values.
Can someone please let me know if this is possible or a limitation and cannot be achieved when linking a list to Access?
This absolutely possible, and MS Access should automatically link any dependent lists when you import a parent list that has lookups.
Check to make sure you don't have multiple UserInfo lists linked, like UserInfo1, UserInfo2, etc. If so, delete all your linked SP lists and relink.