When we attempt to inactivate a record in which there is information which breaks validation rules, a validation conflict resolution window pops up and requires us to correct the record.
This would make sense if we wanted to save it.
However, the objective is to inactivate.
Therefore, is there a way to inactivate a record without having to resolve validation conflicts?
To register for the forums, please contact your Digital-Clay representative.
Inactivate vs. Validation
-
ZevToledano
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:29 pm
Re: Inactivate vs. Validation
There are two separate things here which you seem to mixing together: Validation errors due to automation validation rules, and a conflict resolution window when two users (or a user and the system) attempt to change the same record with conflicting values.
The former is an automation rule which you can replace with a normal automation event handler. I.e. inactivate/delete the automation validation rule and create an automation item add/change event that sets the status field to inactive if certain requirements are met.
With the latter, there is no way to overcome it besides handling it manually in the conflict resolution window. When there is a conflict, you have to tell the system what to do.
The former is an automation rule which you can replace with a normal automation event handler. I.e. inactivate/delete the automation validation rule and create an automation item add/change event that sets the status field to inactive if certain requirements are met.
With the latter, there is no way to overcome it besides handling it manually in the conflict resolution window. When there is a conflict, you have to tell the system what to do.
Re: Inactivate vs. Validation
I am referring to the first: validation errors.
I do not currently see how creating an item add/change event can replace the validation error, at least in this case. There is no general rule by which we would want to inactivate--it is as needed (like if a company in our database is no longer in business).
If we decide for whatever reason that we want to inactivate a record, and it just so happens that a field(s) in the record breaks a validation rule, the system will force us to correct the record and save it. Only then can we try to inactivate it.
Does this make sense?
I do not currently see how creating an item add/change event can replace the validation error, at least in this case. There is no general rule by which we would want to inactivate--it is as needed (like if a company in our database is no longer in business).
If we decide for whatever reason that we want to inactivate a record, and it just so happens that a field(s) in the record breaks a validation rule, the system will force us to correct the record and save it. Only then can we try to inactivate it.
Does this make sense?
-
ZevToledano
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:29 pm
Re: Inactivate vs. Validation
I'm not sure I understood.
My guess is that you don't want the general validation rule to run when you inactivate a record but DO want it to run in all other cases? So simply add a filter in the validation rule that will only send an validation error if the record is not deactivated.
My guess is that you don't want the general validation rule to run when you inactivate a record but DO want it to run in all other cases? So simply add a filter in the validation rule that will only send an validation error if the record is not deactivated.
Re: Inactivate vs. Validation
Indeed, this seems to have taken care of the problem.
Thanks!
Thanks!