Who's On?

	Membership:
	Latest: Kyle
	Past 24 Hours: 0
	Prev. 24 Hours: 0
	Overall: 5220

	People Online:
	Visitors: 233
	Members: 0
	Total: 233

Name	Points
Greg Moeller	4184
David Williams	3349
JonA	3291
Kat V	2984
Woozy	1973
Jimmy Chiu	1883
Kwane McNeal	1437
Ragu Raghavan	1372
Roger French	1315
mark.cook	1244

user id added to SN makes it not work as requested

5 Replies

0 Subscribed to this topic

14 Subscribed to this forum

Sort:

Author

Messages

SueS

Basic Member

Posts: 20

1/9/2013 11:40 AM

We have smart notes for showing before and after changes to dependent records. The fields on the smart note are employee #, relationship, dependent name, ss#, birthdate, and disability flag.

Now a request was made to add the user id so they could see who changed the record. I can't get the smart notes to work correctly with the addition of the user id field which is defined as an attribute.

It is showing up in the before part of the report because the user id has changed - it does not matter if the change was not to one of the key fields listed above. It could just be a change to the phone number and the dependent will then show up on the before part of the report.

Example:

New keys in Data from dependent changes

emp relationship dependent ss# birthdate disabled userid
12345 son Joe Smith ***-**-6789 01/01/92 N x1233

Items no longer in Data from dependent changes

emp relationship dependent ss# birthdate disabled userid
76543 spouse Mary Jones ***-**-5667 11/22/55 N x1111
12345 son Joe Smith ***-**-1111 01/01/92 N c1234

The record for employee 12345 is correct being on the report because the ss# was changed. The record for employee 78543 should not be on the report because the only thing changed for the record was the phone #. It is showing up though because the old userid and new userid are different.

Is there a way to have the user id on the report and only have it appear on the report if one of the fields that changed was relationship, dependent name, ss#, birthdate, and disability flag?

Thanks.

Will

Veteran Member

Posts: 39

1/10/2013 10:44 AM

Hi Sue,

Why don't you use the Has New Keys condition over the {relationship, dependent name, ss#, birthdate, and disability flag} set of fields, while removing the phone # from the infoset query?

SueS

Basic Member

Posts: 20

1/10/2013 11:38 AM

That's just it. The phone # is not part of the query. Only employee #, relationship, dependent name, birthdate, ss#, disability flag and user id are in the query.

The user id is the only item in the query that changed and that is defined as an attribute.

David Williams

Veteran Member

Posts: 1127

1/10/2013 1:21 PM

Are you using the Has New Keys condition that Will suggested?

SueS

Basic Member

Posts: 20

1/10/2013 1:40 PM

Yes, I am using new keys which is okay. Also using Items no longer in data. This is the one that is causing the issue.

Matthew Nye

Veteran Member

Posts: 514

1/10/2013 2:09 PM

Sue,

Using the "Has New Items" and "Items No Longer in Data" is difficult. keep in mind that these conditions are looking at items. An item is an Attribute or a Key. That would explain why youre seeing the row when the phone number is displayed.

If you want to continue using this method I would say first create a multi fact with the fields you want to monitor. Then create your condition to look for "items no longer in the data". After that create a second multi-fact from the same infoset with the same fields as the first but add the attribute fields (Phone #, userid, etc). Now perform a Merge condition, merging your "Items no longer in the data" condition and the 2nd multi-fact. Youll then want to use your Table Tokens to suppress unwanted or duplicate columns. and dont show all the other tables.

This should get you what you want but remember that the item based conditions are really touchy and you may still have issues if you dont have your unique key set correctly.

hth
Matt