5/2/2024 12:30:46 AM
|
| |
| slxdeveloper.com Community Forums |
|
| |
|
|
The Forums on slxdeveloper.com are now retired. The forum archive will remain available for the time being. Thank you for your participation on slxdeveloper.com!
Forum to discuss the use of the SalesLogix Web Platform, Client and Customer Portals, and the Application Architect (For version 7.2 and higher only). View the code of conduct for posting guidelines.
|
|
|
|
7.2 Web Question (before its even been released...I know, my bad..)
Posted: 30 Jul 07 2:23 AM
|
Hi there,
Does anybody know if there are 'known issues' around multiple people using the App. Architect? We have had several issues whereby if one developer adds an entity and builds the app, then I try to build the app it tells me certain entities are missing (the ones the other developer added) so I have to shut everything down and reopen, hence losing a few of my changes.
Thanks!
Nick |
|
|
|
Re: 7.2 Web Question (before its even been released...I know, my bad..)
Posted: 30 Jul 07 11:13 AM
|
Hi Nick,
Basically what is happening is that your build path is local to your pc. So, as you build, the compiled assemblies are going to be found locally on your pc. Then when someone else adds an entity, they will build and those compiled entities will be found on their pc, not yours - your locally compiled assemblies do not contain the definitions for that entity (until you build again).
To be honest, I've not used AA in a multi-developer environment (yet), but I've been assured by the developers at Sage that all that is accounted for.
Here's some things I think I would try in that environment. First of all, I would export the VFS to a shared network location. You do this in the Project Workspaces area. You add a new Project location, point it to the shared network location and then it will copy the existing VFS to that new location. Also, you can change your build path, I wonder if it would allow for a shared build path? That might cause issues, but I'd probably try it.
I'll see if I can get some best-case scenarios for working in a multi-dev environment from the Sage guys.
-Ryan |
|
|
|
Re: 7.2 Web Question (before its even been released...I know, my bad..)
Posted: 30 Jul 07 11:30 AM
|
I thought about this more. The thing is that if an entity is added, you have to rebuild (or at least rebuild interfaces) to use it. It won't matter if you added the entity or someone else added the entity. You'll need to rebuild to use it. The thing to remember is the default settings for your build path is local. That's probably the best way to keep it. I'd still try using a shared build path, but not sure it will work or not. But that is how it is. For the most part, you'll be adding your entities up front, then build. Then you'll be doing the development for those entities. So each dev would need a local build to start with. Then they continue on normally. Make sense?
Anyway, I'll let you know what I hear from Sage or other that might be using it in a multi-dev environment. |
|
|
|
Re: 7.2 Web Question (before its even been released...I know, my bad..)
Posted: 30 Jul 07 11:34 AM
|
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for the response - I wonder if its because we've confused it with a terminal server environment, i.e. the paths or not local to our machine but to a terminal server instance. To alleviate we have installed our own environments locally and bundle up to the main development environment. We are having many issues at the moment but the main ones are:
We cant edit the existing business rules (there is no option to view or edit, so we dont know what the code is doing)...
We cant edit certain tabs. For some reason (the Contact Marketing tab for example) some tabs are not forms, so you cant edit them! Im probably missing something but its not obvious how to get at these phantom smart parts to edit them (without editing the source code in pure c#)...
Do we really have to do a build and deploy even if we change one label on a form? Obviously we will live this but it would be nice if there was a quick form build button that im missing!
Again, many thanks for the response - I dont expect you to answer any of the above (they are just an expression of current frustrations  ) as we have the questions posted with Sage, but they do not have time to answer our queries currently, so my hair is getting thinner!.
Thanks,
Nick |
|
|
|
Re: 7.2 Web Question (before its even been released...I know, my bad..)
Posted: 30 Jul 07 11:36 AM
|
Hi Ryan,
Yes I think I understand the concept, its just that we get problems if somebody else adds the entity and then you try to build - it kicks off! Usually a reset of the product helps but its hard to find a pattern (maybe its if the other developer adds the entity and doesnt build before you?). It may be related to the terminal server issue I mentioned in the reply I just put in this forum a second ago..
Cheers!
Nick |
|
|
|
Re: 7.2 Web Question (before its even been released...I know, my bad..)
Posted: 30 Jul 07 12:16 PM
|
Originally posted by Nick
I wonder if its because we've confused it with a terminal server environment, i.e. the paths or not local to our machine but to a terminal server instance |
|
I use it in a terminal server environment as well, but the same applies, the build path will default to the users app data folder, so it is still local to each user. You can see the build path by going to Tools|Build Settings.
Originally posted by Nick
We cant edit the existing business rules (there is no option to view or edit, so we dont know what the code is doing)... |
|
The OOTB business rules are uneditable on purpose. You're not supposed to be able to edit them. You can add additional steps to the rules so include additional actions, or just remove them to create your own. It is like this so the upgrade path is easier. There's no mixing of your code and their code, so when it is time for an upgrade, you don't need to worry about your code getting overwritten by something new. Make sense? (as you mentioned, you could always just edit it in the C# and compile using VS as well if you really had to, but that isn't recommended as you'd loose your change when an upgrade comes out)
Originally posted by Nick
We cant edit certain tabs. For some reason (the Contact Marketing tab for example) some tabs are not forms, so you cant edit them! Im probably missing something but its not obvious how to get at these phantom smart parts to edit them (without editing the source code in pure c#)... |
|
You'll notice that some SmartParts listed for a page are marked as "custom". These are the ones you refer to as uneditable, such as the contact marketing tab. These SmartParts marked as custom are not based on quick forms (the forms you create under an entity), but instead are just straight ASCX files. To edit these, you go to the Support Files area for the portal, expand SmartParts and locate the ASCX file to edit (there will also be an associated CS file for the code-behind if applicable). You can open these in AA and make whatever changes to the CS/ASCX files. Make sense? Basically, not everything is possible as a quick form (at least not in this initial version), so some of them are created externally and added in. If your VFS is exported to the file system, you could use VS to edit these.
Originally posted by Nick
Do we really have to do a build and deploy even if we change one label on a form? Obviously we will live this but it would be nice if there was a quick form build button that im missing! |
|
Any change made to the portal must be deployed to be seen. If your change is under the Entity Model, then yes, you'll also need to build before deploying. If your change isn't under the Entity Model, like modifying a file in the Support Files, or adding a SmartPart to a page, then no build is necessary to deploy. The good part is that the build and deploy steps do only the minimal necessary items that have changed. The first time you build, and the first time you deploy it does everything, so it takes longer. The builds and deployment after the first one will only do the bare-minimum and does go a bit faster.
-Ryan |
|
|
|
Re: 7.2 Web Question (before its even been released...I know, my bad..)
Posted: 30 Jul 07 12:44 PM
|
Fantastic, thanks Ryan - thats made a few things make sense! One issue I have with the business rules not being accesible is if for example they reference a control on a page how do I know I wont break them by removing a control? I guess you have already answered this i.e. if they are un-editable I can assume that they never reference a control on a particular form, am I correct in assuming this?
Thanks very much,
Nick |
|
|
|
Re: 7.2 Web Question (before its even been released...I know, my bad..)
Posted: 30 Jul 07 12:51 PM
|
| That is correct, a business rule will never reference a control. If it needs to then it will be implemented as a validation rule instead. Business rules work against the entity itself. Nothing to do with any specific form. Validation rules are meant to work against forms, and *are* editable. |
|
|
| |
|
Re: 7.2 Web Question (before its even been released...I know, my bad..)
Posted: 31 Jul 07 2:47 AM
|
Hi Ryan,
I have seen the validation rules previously and changed them to no effect which I think is why I was beginning to assume it was the business rules that were setting up the page etc. Do you have any idea why changing the onload action (the c# Code snippet, in the loadactions collection of accountdetails) of account details to:
//Begin Load Action
//Sage.Entity.Interfaces.IAccount account = this.BindingSource.Current as Sage.Entity.Interfaces.IAccount;
//Owner.Enabled = account.CanChangeOwner();
Owner.Enabled = true;
AccountName.Text = "Test";
//End Load Action}
Doesnt change anything on the page whatsoever (even after a full build/deploy several times). Even commenting out the original sage lines doesnt stop anything working and none of the controls get set how we specify above.
Thanks,
Nick |
|
|
|
You can
subscribe to receive a daily forum digest in your
user profile. View the site code
of conduct for posting guidelines.
 Forum RSS Feed - Subscribe to the forum RSS feed to keep on top of the latest forum activity!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|