When reconnecting after being offline, a colleague manually ran the synchronize function from today's date.
A conflict was raised to be resolved. The options presented (keep existing, edit existing, keep new, edit new) had no information listed (blank) and when the relevant company/entity was called up to edit, they did not lead to us finding any apparent conflicts or problems with the data entered.
The company/entity was then saved and the system appeared to accept it.
Later, the colleague ran synchronize again and the same conflict was presented. Repeating these steps led to the same conflict raised. We thought that after the record is saved properly, it should not keep raising a conflict and appear as if no information was there.
Do you know why this could be?
To register for the forums, please contact your Digital-Clay representative.
Synchronize
-
ZevToledano
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:29 pm
Re: Synchronize
This needs investigation... here are some places to start that may reveal clues:
First look closely again at the conflict window: It is supposed to list which fields were conflicting, so even if they have blank values, the field names should appear in the list. Unless this list is completely empty that is...
When the entity was saved, how was this done exactly? Was anything changed in the record? Did you keep existing or keep new?
Other theories I would look into are:
- Language issues: were there perhaps special characters in the record that aren't being translated properly due to the OS language or due to binary data?
- Length issues: This shouldn't happen in theory because database field properties are synced, but I would check for field values that are too long.
- Perhaps something to do with 'read-only' fields...?
Screenshots of the conflict window + record fields may help as well.
First look closely again at the conflict window: It is supposed to list which fields were conflicting, so even if they have blank values, the field names should appear in the list. Unless this list is completely empty that is...
When the entity was saved, how was this done exactly? Was anything changed in the record? Did you keep existing or keep new?
Other theories I would look into are:
- Language issues: were there perhaps special characters in the record that aren't being translated properly due to the OS language or due to binary data?
- Length issues: This shouldn't happen in theory because database field properties are synced, but I would check for field values that are too long.
- Perhaps something to do with 'read-only' fields...?
Screenshots of the conflict window + record fields may help as well.
Re: Synchronize
A seemingly related issue:
The same person entered an company and contact people while offline. Then online, he did the manual synchronize.
A few days later when he looked up those contact people online, the contacts appeared but were not linked with any company--and the company was no where to be found! Therefore, somehow the synchronization inputed the contacts but not the entity.
The user remembers seeing only one message during the synchronization: one of the contacts he entered was already in the online database in a different company. The system asked if it should create the new one anyway and he answered yes.
This user has found many instances of missing information following synchronization.
Thoughts? Could he be missing contradiction messages? Could the fact that he is the only one in the office using Vista influence this matter?
The same person entered an company and contact people while offline. Then online, he did the manual synchronize.
A few days later when he looked up those contact people online, the contacts appeared but were not linked with any company--and the company was no where to be found! Therefore, somehow the synchronization inputed the contacts but not the entity.
The user remembers seeing only one message during the synchronization: one of the contacts he entered was already in the online database in a different company. The system asked if it should create the new one anyway and he answered yes.
This user has found many instances of missing information following synchronization.
Thoughts? Could he be missing contradiction messages? Could the fact that he is the only one in the office using Vista influence this matter?
-
ZevToledano
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:29 pm
Re: Synchronize
Digital-Clay synchronization has gone through many years of fine tuning and it is used extensively by many customers. I can assure you that no data is lost during synchronization.
Each and every case must be investigated separately and there are MANY factors that may cause data to change, including user error issues. If you need my help tracking these cases down then I will need a very detailed report and answers to all my questions. You did not reply to my previous post.
In the new specific case you mentioned, the customer may have been deleted/merged by someone due to it being a duplicate. You can manually check the Deletions table in the database for this.
Or perhaps there were validation errors or conflicts which he ignored. Or synchronization errors. For these cases, he should compare his Contact while offline, to the same Contact while online.
Or you may have some automations that are changing the Contact record. You should check the record history.
Or if he is using ClayStation for Outlook, then he may have changed his Outlook Contact. Or perhaps he simply didn't save the Contact record after setting the customer. Again, check the history.
There is definitely some confusion involved, because the question regarding duplicate customers is only asked while adding the customer, not while synchronizing.
For further help, you will need to let me know your findings on the above points as well as any more details you can think of. Also, the first thing you should do in any case is inspect the record history for changes to the Customer field.
Each and every case must be investigated separately and there are MANY factors that may cause data to change, including user error issues. If you need my help tracking these cases down then I will need a very detailed report and answers to all my questions. You did not reply to my previous post.
In the new specific case you mentioned, the customer may have been deleted/merged by someone due to it being a duplicate. You can manually check the Deletions table in the database for this.
Or perhaps there were validation errors or conflicts which he ignored. Or synchronization errors. For these cases, he should compare his Contact while offline, to the same Contact while online.
Or you may have some automations that are changing the Contact record. You should check the record history.
Or if he is using ClayStation for Outlook, then he may have changed his Outlook Contact. Or perhaps he simply didn't save the Contact record after setting the customer. Again, check the history.
There is definitely some confusion involved, because the question regarding duplicate customers is only asked while adding the customer, not while synchronizing.
For further help, you will need to let me know your findings on the above points as well as any more details you can think of. Also, the first thing you should do in any case is inspect the record history for changes to the Customer field.
Re: Synchronize
Thanks for all of these good pointers for investigation. I will try to report more thoroughly so that you can try to help.
Regarding the earlier phenomenon, the user believes he changed the fields listed in the conflict window and saved by clicking the save icon at the top or ok at the bottom. Nevertheless, I am not sure if he remembers the exact steps he took for saving these items.
So far, I have noticed that no special characters, extra long expressions or read-only fields seem to be involved.
I think I will have to investigate further when the user returns to the office on Sunday (with his offline Clay database).
Regarding the more recent issue, where can I find the deletions table?
When the user compared his Contact while offline, to the same Contact while online, he found that the one offline is completely accurate including his linked company. Online, the contact can be found but is not linked to the company--which online does not exist. The contact's record online history only lists "Created" "Added" and "Changed Tel". It is as if the company never reached the online database but its two contacts did.
The user is not using ClayStation for Outlook.
The user may have ignored messages (though he believes he did not) or, for some reason, did not seem to see them.
I will continue the investigation and keep you updated.
Regarding the earlier phenomenon, the user believes he changed the fields listed in the conflict window and saved by clicking the save icon at the top or ok at the bottom. Nevertheless, I am not sure if he remembers the exact steps he took for saving these items.
So far, I have noticed that no special characters, extra long expressions or read-only fields seem to be involved.
I think I will have to investigate further when the user returns to the office on Sunday (with his offline Clay database).
Regarding the more recent issue, where can I find the deletions table?
When the user compared his Contact while offline, to the same Contact while online, he found that the one offline is completely accurate including his linked company. Online, the contact can be found but is not linked to the company--which online does not exist. The contact's record online history only lists "Created" "Added" and "Changed Tel". It is as if the company never reached the online database but its two contacts did.
The user is not using ClayStation for Outlook.
The user may have ignored messages (though he believes he did not) or, for some reason, did not seem to see them.
I will continue the investigation and keep you updated.
-
ZevToledano
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:29 pm
Re: Synchronize
Regarding the conflict, if he does not choose either keep new or keep existing, then the conflict can return again later when he resynchronizes manually. Furthermore, his offline record can remain out of sync.
Similarly, with the new case, if you say the offline Contact is out of sync with his online Contact, then that probably means a validation error or conflict was not fixed/resolved which would explain the discrepancy. Alternatively, a synchronization was interrupted or ran into an error. I would also check that the user has appropriate permissions to these tables.
In both cases, a manual resynchronization (make sure you enter an appropriate sync date before the customer modified date), should resync the customer and popup the validation/conflict windows again for fixing if needed.
Also, note that in the Customer field, a blank value is not the same as a '[None]' value. The former means the Customer is missing, the latter that it is not linked to a customer.
Similarly, with the new case, if you say the offline Contact is out of sync with his online Contact, then that probably means a validation error or conflict was not fixed/resolved which would explain the discrepancy. Alternatively, a synchronization was interrupted or ran into an error. I would also check that the user has appropriate permissions to these tables.
In both cases, a manual resynchronization (make sure you enter an appropriate sync date before the customer modified date), should resync the customer and popup the validation/conflict windows again for fixing if needed.
Also, note that in the Customer field, a blank value is not the same as a '[None]' value. The former means the Customer is missing, the latter that it is not linked to a customer.