I want to insert a case and send error using addError() method in salesforce in Before update trigger.But using addError method case getting rolled back.
In Before update
if(condition)
Insert a case
acc.addError()enter code here
}
}
That's how it works. You can't have transaction succeed (save successfully) and throw exception at same time.
If you want to save the case but show something to user consider setting some field on it, sending email, making a Task user has to complete, Chatter post maybe.
Or make custom UI piece (lightning web component?) and there you could for example abuse record-edit-form's onsuccess handler to display red toast if you want. That'll be just UI thing though, Data Loader and integrations won't care.
Related
I have an actions project built and working. I'm trying to handle some error scenarios where it is failing. I need some help there.
I have a scenario where the webhook call throws a proper JSON formatted error response as shown below but which couldn't not be read at google end. Not sure if that is google actions limitation. Because of this issue I couldn't trigger a webhook handler back to my server to end the open conversation smoothly.
{
“responseJson”: {
“error”: {
“message”: “Transaction cancelled: maximum execution time exceeded”,
“detail”: “Transaction cancelled: ****”
},
“status”: “failure”
}
}
In the Error & status handling of actions scenes I dont see any system intent other than Cancel to handle any such error scenarios, I don't see any other relevant system intents too.
In simple words, I'm trying to catch a bad response and trigger back a webhook call to end the conversation at server side.
Could someone suggest a way to deal with this issue?
APIClient?.update(Record, completion: { response, error in
dLog(response)
dLog(error)
})
We've been trying to work through a buggy API that is provided by another company. Sometimes, the API works and I get a response record. Occasionally, the update disappears into a blackhole and completion never gets called, so I don't get an error either.
Ultimately we want the API to be fixed, but what is the correct way to catch this in the meantime so I can popup an alert?
I've used XCTest/expectation/waitFor, but I think that's mainly for Unit Testing, not sure if that could apply here.
We are trying to move some of our app to use backbone and tastypie. I have the REST api set up and it is working on some basic examples. However, there are a few issues where currently we post an ajax request to a custom url, and in that view do a few things like
make related objects
call a few related functions
However, now that I've switched some of this functionality to using backbone and the REST api, I'm not sure where all of that should go!
For example, I had a view to make a Message, and when I made a Message, I also made a Notification and called a function to add some points to the user. Something like
def ajax_send_message(request):
## ... set up some variables ...
## Make the new message
message = Message(user=user, content=message)
message.save()
## Make the notification
notification = Notification(message=message)
notification.save()
## Give the user points
user.add_points_for_message();
return json_response({"status": "ok"})
Now--am I just supposed to do this all in JavaScript? I have a Message Backbone model as well.
// Create message backbone object
var msg = new Message({content:content, user: user});
// Post to server
msg.save();
// Add to backbone collection
messages.add(msg);
I've looked at different parts of tastypie, and it seems you can create custom URL endpoints, and also do validation, but that doesnt seem like the right spot to call related methods. It seems that calling related methods goes against the REST part of it---but then where are they supposed to go?
If I want to add some logic to backbone only when an object is created, where does that go?
The first thing I would suggest is to switch your mindset to an event-based model, where your code reacts to events. In your example above, you save the model to the server then immediately dd it to the collection. How do you even know that the model was saved correctly? That procedural style of programming works better in a synchronous, server-side style of programming.
In the asynchronous world of client-side programming, you make a request and then set up callbacks which determine what will happen next, depending on the events your are listening for. In your case, you want to react a certain way when the message is saved successfully, correct? You can define a success callback for your save operation like so:
msg.save({
success: function(model, response, options) {
messages.add(model);
// code to add notification
// code to add points
}
});
Basically, you are saying "I would like to save this model, and then listen for a success event. When the event comes in, execute the following code." Notice also that I am adding the model returned from the API to the collection, since this is the exact object that was persisted to the server so it's more appropriate to add than the model you created.
My code is for sending Emails to multiple users.User will click on send button,and rpc will be called. Now if user clicks on Cancel button .Ongoing rpc should be cancelled. . Can anyone help ?
I googled a lot, they have introduced the concept of Request Builder. But I am not getting any perfect idea.
Make your async method return a Request instead of void so you can call cancel() on it.
For the same reason, asynchronous methods do not have return types; they generally return void. Should you wish to have more control over the state of a pending request, return Request instead.
— Source: https://developers.google.com/web-toolkit/doc/latest/DevGuideServerCommunication#DevGuideCreatingServices
FYI, you can also use RequestBuilder as the return type, you'll then have to call the send() method by yourself (after possibly customizing the request, e.g. adding headers) to actually make the request to the server.
And of course, if you need to tell the server to abort the processing, you'll have to make another RPC call.
The request is asynch, so the client side can do anything it wants.
All you need to do is add a flag to indicate that the request should be cancelled, and then change the onSuccess method to check the flag and do nothing if it is set.
You should clear the requestCancelled flag each time you make a request - or else after the first request is cancelled, you won't be able to make another one...
e.g.
boolean requestCancelled = false;
void onSuccess(...)
{
if (!requestCancelled) {
// actual response handing code
}
}
If you really want to cancel the request on the server side, it is a lot more complicated. You could do this by sending a second request - one where the fuinctionality is to cancel a request.
To make this work, the "cancel request" has to set a field somewhere the "email request" can read. The "email request" needs to check if the "cancel field" has been set.
// server side Impl
void cancelRequest()
{
// You need to implement this class and ensure it really is a singleton
// and thread safe.
RequestStatusSingleton.setCancelled(true);
}
void serverSideEmailFunc()
{
while(modeEmailAddrs && ! RequestStatusSingleton.getCancelled()) {
// get next address and send email
}
}
Obviously this is a lot of work. Have you considered:
Not having a cancel button on your GUI?
Getting the server to process emails a few at a time (i.e. client sends multiple requests until server tells the client all emails are done).
I totally understand your user. No one wants to wait for 15 seconds.
There is no standard way to "kill" the request, because there is no way to know where your server/datastore is in implementing it. Unless you deal with a process that can be put in a single transaction that can be rolled back, you will have to implement your own logic. For example, if you asked the server to save an entity, you will have to tell the server to save this entity again, but this time without the changes.
Also, think again about your use case. Why a user wants to kill the request? May be he simply wants to go to another place in the app. Then there is no need to kill the request: when the response arrives, check if the user is still in the same place patiently waiting. If not, do not execute onSuccess().
I rewrote the title and content 3 times before posting it, I don't find the right way to ask this :P
I have a page that manage a list of notes, I have a CRUD on that page but the items are created and saved in javascript (using knockoutjs).
I create a new note, I add it to the model in javascript and it show up in the page.
The way Im saving the notes to the database is when I add it to the model, I send it via Ajax (async) to the server. So I have my note on screen and in the database really fast.
I send a note without Id to the server and EF will take care of the Id.
So far so good.
Imagine that I add a note but I dont refresh the webpage, so the note is in the database, is in the javascript model too but in the model it doesn't have the id yet.
I make some changes to the note and yeah, I want to update the note in the database... but... how?
I send my note to the server with the changes, but remember, the item still have no Id so I can't say:
Hey EF, give me the note with the ID == xx and we are going to update that note.
The others properties can be changed on the webpage so I have nothing that identifies the note apart from the Id, who doesn't work here.
I tried this:
Send the new note to the server, insert it on the database, retrieve it again (to pick the Id), send it back to javascript and update the object with the Id. So when I edit, I have the Id. Yeah, but the "save" call need to be sync and that destroy the experience.
Any ideas?
EDIT: The sync options is not that slow at the end but there have to be a async way and meh, the thing of "Insert on database", "Retrieve the last item I inserted" and "return back to the client" is a little hackish.
You could return the id of the new record in your asynch call. If you are using jQuery you can subscribe to the "success" callback and as long as your controller returns a JSON with the id of the new record you could update your model on the client side.
Even with this approach, you will need to have a way to identify the item updated on the client side (which is really the root of your question.) For that you can probably generate a random GUID on the client side, send it to the server when saving, and return it to jQuery when returning the ID so that you can identify the correct element to update on the page.