I am using before update triggers to enforce some complex business rules.
One trigger has three separate checks, each running its own query.
Is this best implemented using:
a) a single before update trigger containing all three querys
b) three separate before update triggers each containing a single query
If all checks inside triggers are connected with business rules, then one trigger gives better (more redadable) structure of checks, better control over checks order, trigger can be terminated with error in any time without processing all checks, additionaly there is always place to reuse some information obtained during check in next one.
The same functionality can be achieved with multiple triggers, but execution order of those triggers may be not so obvious.
According to Documentation
If multiple triggers of the same kind are defined for the same event,
they will be fired in alphabetical order by name.
It' s worth mentioning, that placing complex business rules inside triggers is not recommended approach.
Related
What is the order that RULEs fire when applied to an INSERT?
Are they done AFTER or BEFORE the record is inserted.
What I am trying to do is create a new record in another table, which will link to the record that was INSERTed.
Take for example; To make a rule that will creating a new page, when a document is created, so that a document will always start with an empty page record.
I have looked high and low, and maybe I'm asking Google the wrong question, but I cannot find any documentation about the order of execution for RULES.
Quote from the manual
Multiple rules on the same table and same event type are applied in alphabetical name order.
So the ordering does not depend on the type of the rule, only on the name.
And it also explains how the rule is "applied"
It is important to realize that a rule is really a command transformation mechanism, or command macro. The transformation happens before the execution of the command starts.
Emphasis mine
So the rule doesn't happen "before" or "after" a statement runs - it runs instead of that statement.
What I am trying to do is create a new record in another table, which will link to the record that was INSERTed.
You definitely want an AFTER INSERT trigger for that. Forget about rules.
Which is also what the manuals recommends:
If you actually want an operation that fires independently for each physical row, you probably want to use a trigger, not a rule
I have a real-time workflow for creating unique numbers. This workflow get a numeric field from my custom entity, increase it by 1, and update it for next use.
I want to run this workflow on multiple records.
Running on-demand mode, it works fine,and I have true and unique numbers, but for "Record is Created" mode, it dose not work fine and get repeated numbers.
What I have to do?
This approach wont work, when the workflow runs on demand its running multi-threaded, e.g. two users create two records, two instances of the workflow start. As there is no locking mechanism you end up with duplicated numbers.
I'm guessing this isn't happening when running on demand because you are running as a single user.
You will need to implement a custom auto number approach, such as Auto Number for DynamicsCRM.
Disclaimer: I work for Gap Consulting who produce the tool linked above.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
What I know about triggers is that they are triggered by events (Insert, Update, Delete). So we can run a stored procedure etc.. in the trigger.
This will give the application a good responsiveness because the query that the user interacts with, is quite small and this "other" longer time taking stuffs are taken care by the server internally as a separate task.
But I do not know about how the the triggers are handled inside the server. What I exactly want to know is what would happen in scenarios as given below.
Take Insert after trigger. And take trigger is executing a longer stored procedure. Then in the middle of the trigger there can be another insert. What I want to know is what will happen to that second trigger. If possible can I make that second trigger ignore itself.
marc_s has given the correct answer. I will copy it for the sake of completeness.
TRIGGERS ARE SYNCHRONOUS
If you want to have a asynchronous functionality go for a SQL broker implimenation.
Triggers are triggered by events - and then they are executed - right now. Since you cannot control when and how often they are triggered, you should keep the processing in those triggers to an absolute minimum - I always try to make - at most - an entry into another table (an "Audit" table) or possibly put a "marker" row into a "command" table. But the actual processing of that info - running stored procedures etc. - should be left to an outside job - don't do extensive processing in a trigger! This will reliably KILL all your performance\responsiveness.
In our production org, we have a system of uploading sales data into Salesforce using command line data loader. This data is loaded into a temporary object Temp. We have created a formula field (which combines three fields) to form a unique key. The purpose of the object is to reduce user efforts for creating the key manually.
There is an after insert trigger on Temp which calls an asynchronous method which upserts the data to another object SalesData using the key. The insert/update trigger on SalesData checks the various fields and creates/updates the records in another object SalesRecords. After the insertion/updation is complete, all the records in temp object Temp are deleted. The SalesRecords object does not have any trigger on it and is a child of another object Sales. The Sales object has some rollup fields which are summing up fields from SalesRecords object.
Lately, we are getting the below error for some of the records which are updated.
UNABLE_TO_LOCK_ROW, unable to obtain exclusive access to this record
Please provide some pointers to resolve the issue
this could either be caused by conflicting DML operations in the various trigger execution or some recursive trigger execution. i would assume that the async executions cause multiple subsequent updates on the same records, probably on the SalesRecords object. I would recommend to try to simplify the process to avoid too many related trigger executions.
I'm a little surprised you were able to get this to work in the first place. After triggers should be used with caution and only when before triggers can't be. One reason for this is that you don't need to perform additional DML to make changes to records, since in before triggers you simply change the values and the insert/update commit happens automatically. But recursive trigger firings is the main problem with after triggers.
One quick way to avoid trigger re-entry is to use a public static Boolean in a class that states whether you're already in this trigger from the same thread of execution.
Something like:
public static Boolean isExecuting = false;
Once set to true, any trigger code that is a re-fire can be avoided with:
if(Class.isExecuting == false)
{
Class.isExecuting = true;
// Perform trigger logic
// ...
}
Additionally, since the order of trigger execution cannot be determined up front, you might be seeing an issue with deletions or other data changes that depend on other parts of your flow to finish first.
Also, without knowing the details of your custom unique 3-part key, I'd wonder if there's a problem there too such as whether it's truly unique or not. Case insensitivity is a common mistake and it's the reason there are 15 AND 18 character Ids in Salesforce. For example, when people export to Excel (a case-insensitive environment) and do VLOOKUPs, they would occasionally find the wrong record. The 3-digit calculated suffix was added to disambiguate for case-insensitive environments.
Googling for this same error lead me to this post:
http://boards.developerforce.com/t5/General-Development/Unable-to-obtain-exclusive-access-to-this-record/td-p/345319
Which points out some common causes for this to happen:
Sharing Rules are being calculated.
A picklist value has been replaced and replacement is in progress.
A custom index creation/removal is in progress.
Most unlikely one - someone else is already editing the same record that you are trying to access at the same time.
Posting here in case somebody else needs it.
I got this error multiple times today. Turned out one of our vendors was updating their installed package during that time in the same org. All kinds of things were going wrong also - some object validation exceptions were being thrown on DMLs, without any error message content.
Resolution
The error is shown when a field update such as a roll-up summary field is being attempted on a parent object that already had a field update to cause the roll-up summary field to calculate. This could also occur if a trigger or another apex job running on the master object and it also attempting to do an update.
You can either reduce the batch size and try again or create separate smaller files to be imported if this issue occurs.
The result of SqlWorkflowInstanceStore.WaitForEvents does not tell me what type of workflow is runnable. The constructor of WorkflowApplication takes a workflow definition, and at a minimum, I need to be able to store a workflow ID in the store and query it, so that I can determine which workflow definition to load for the WorkflowApplication.
I also don't want to create a SqlWorkflowInstanceStore for each custom workflow type, since there may be thousands of different workflows.
I thought about trying to use WorkflowServiceHost, but not every workflow has a Receive activity and I don't think it is feasible to have thousands of WorkflowServiceHosts running, each supporting a different workflow type.
Ideally, I just want to query the database for a runnable workflow, determine its workflow definition ID, load the appropriate XAML from a workflow definition table, instantiate WorkflowApplication with the workflow definition, and call LoadRunnableInstance().
I would like to have a way to correlate which workflow is related to a given HasRunnableWorkflowEvent raised by the SqlWorkflowInstanceStore (along with the custom workflow definition ID), or have an alternate way of supporting potentially thousands of different custom workflow types created at runtime. I must also load balance the execution of workflows across multiple application servers.
There's a free product from Microsoft that does pretty much everything you say there, and then some. Oh, and it's excellent too.
Windows Server AppFabric. No, not Azure.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/app-main.aspx
-Oisin