DS Version 11.7
In the DSODBConfig.cfg file, we set MonitorLinks=1.
The documentation tells us that this setting
Controls if stage-level and link-level statistics, and references to
data locators, are captured at the end of each job run.
But when we inspect the DSODB tables, we only find data for links that are either a data source or a data target. All data for intermediate links is missing.
Q:
Is it somehow possible to enable the logging of really all links?
I am creating a data dictionary and I am supposed to track the location of any used field in a workbook. For example (superstore sample data), I need to specify which sheets/dashboards have the [sub-category] field.
My dataset has hundreds of measures/dimensions/calc fields, so it's incredibly time exhaustive to click into every single sheet/dashboard just to see if a field exists in there, so is there a quicker way to do this?
One robust, but not free, approach is to use Tableau's Data Catalog which is part of the Tableau Server Data Management Add-On
Another option is to build your own cross reference - You could start with Chris Gerrard's ruby libraries described in the article http://tableaufriction.blogspot.com/2018/09/documenting-dashboards-and-their.html
So I've started learning access due to necessity, as the person who was in charge of it passed way and someone had to keep it going.
I noticed a very bad (at least IMO) behavior in all databases he created: Every single form was bound directly to a table or saved query. This way, if the user opened a form, he had to complete all the steps he was supposed to do, because if he closed the form mid process (or the computer froze, or anything of the sort), the actual data would be compromised as it would be half complete. This often times broke everything in the process chain, rendering sub-sequential steps impossible to be performed and forced me to correct data manually directly in the tables.
As I've start upgrading his stuff and developing my own, I've been trying to learn ways to allow the data to be edited in the form only, making it possible to cancel the process anytime or save the changes all at once in the end.
If the editions were simple, I discovered that I could create a recordset, copy relevant data to unbound fields in the form and, in the end, if the user chose to, copy the data from the form fields back to the recordset.
Other times more complex solutions were required, as I would need to edit several pieces of data at once in continuous forms, "save" them, run more code, maybe add fields to hold the information originated from that processing and so on. I then learned about using temporary tables, but did not like it, since it tended to bloat the db. I even went on to creating temporary databases during code execution that would host the temporary tables and be destroyed in the end, but that added too much unnecessary complexity.
Nowadays I'm using disconnected ADO recordsets to hold the temporary data and fields. It works but has its limitations.
So I'm wondering, what is the best way you - much more experienced than me - guys use to approach this kind of scenario? Is using in memory ADO recordsets really the best way around?
I think you are mixing two things that a form does that have completely different requirements. Editing existing records (and bound forms are great for that) and creating new records (where using a straight bound form can result in creating incomplete records). The way to approach it depends on many things but mainly to how much data is necessary for a new record to be considered "complete".
I usually do one of the following things:
Create an unbound popup modal form for adding new records where only the necessary fields are present. Once complete it loads the new record to the main form for further editing.
Use the above method except the form is not a popup one but a set of unbound fields in the footer or header of the main form.
Let the user create new records but bind validation on the OnClose (and/or other appropriate to your situation) event of the form that deletes the half-filled record if it does not validate.
Let users create new records in the bound form but have a 'cleanup' routine called either on a schedule or based on user actions.
Ultimately if your business process requires the majority of fields to be manually added/edited every time a new record is added or edited, you are better off using an unbound form.
This way, if the user opened a form, he had to complete all the steps
he was supposed to do, because if he closed the form mid process (or
the computer froze, or anything of the sort), the actual data would be
compromised as it would be half complete
No, if the computer freezes, then no data is saved to the table. This is the same if you used a disconnected reocrdset and a un-bound form.
If you use the before update event in the form that has some verification code and does a simple cancel = true, then the forms data is not saved nor is the table updated. Again, if you used a dis-connected record set and the user closes the form, you have to test the data – and again you can either choose to write out the data or not – this effect is ZERO difference from using a bound form to a table or a disconnected form.
If the editions were simple, I discovered that I could create a
recordset, copy relevant data to unbound fields in the form and, in
the end, if the user chose to, copy the data from the form fields back
to the recordset.
No you don’t need to do the above. The above achieves nothing and only racks up additional development hours and increases cost of the application. In near all cases in-bound forms increase development costs over that of a simple form bound to a table. So the original developer had the correct idea. You can control the update of the underlying table in near all cases to achieve the required verification. Forms only save and write the data out if the developer allows as such.
So Access forms when bound no more or less write incomplete data out to a table if you place verification code in the forms before update event. A half-filled bound form, or a half filled un-bound form with dis-connected reocrdset BOTH will not write their data if the computer freezes.
And BOTH types of forms will not write out data to table until such time your verification code has completed.
Access is not designed for un-bound forms, and tools like vb.net, or even VB6 had a whole bunch of cool wizards and support for un-bound forms. In access, we don't have those wizards. And when you use UN-bound forms then you loose tons of form events. You in effect get the worst of both worlds, since you lose use of form events and have no wizards or support for un-bound. Even just the several delete record events we have are rather amazing.
You lose use of me.dirty, on-insert, me.newReocrd, forms after update events - the list of features you toss out and lose is huge. And if you want a button to write data to the table (such as a save button on the form), then just go:
If me.Dirty = True then
me.Dirty = False ' this forces your verification code to run
End if
There are FEW use cases in which in-bound forms will benefit you, but they will cost you rather much in terms of development times.
I am trying to generate analytics reports using high charts.
For that I need to get values from alfresco DB using Postgres query. Can any one tell me what are the tables related workflow creation and save all workflow details.
I got some references from the below link.
http://techogeek.blogspot.in/2015/09/how-retrieve-activiti-workflow-details.html
As Gagravarr suggests, don't hit the database directly and use always the workflowservice to get the data workflow related data.
ACT_RE_*: RE stands for repository. Tables with this prefix contain static information such as process definitions and process resources (images, rules, etc.).
ACT_RU_*: RU stands for runtime. These are the runtime tables that contain the runtime data of process instances, user tasks, variables, jobs, etc. Activiti only stores the runtime data during process instance execution, and removes the records when a process instance ends. This keeps the runtime tables small and fast.
ACT_ID_*: ID stands for identity. These tables contain identity information, such as users, groups, etc.
ACT_HI_*: HI stands for history. These are the tables that contain historic data, such as past process instances, variables, tasks, etc.
ACT_GE_*: general data, which is used in various use cases.
I have a nice process overview for our ordering process in Visio. I have an external data source (SQL Server), which works fine. Every record in my data source represents one ordering process. Currently all my shapes of the process are linked to the first record of the data source.
Now I want to add a dynamic behavior. What I want to achieve is this:
A user provides the order reference in a textbox (order reference is a column in the data source)
Afterwards the user clicks a button
After the button click, the process is updated and all shapes are now linked to the external data source record, that matches the provided order reference
So in short: the user should be able to select which process that needs to be visualized.
I assume that this is common functionality, but I don't see how I can deal with this requirement. I've searched already some days on this issue, but without any success.
Can you help me with this issue?
Thanks a lot!
Problem solved :-)
Some old school VBA was required. Using the DataRecordSet object did the trick. It contains a method GetDataRowIDs that you can use to query the external dataset. Once you have the record to visualize, it's just a matter of dynamically updating the shapes with the correct record. Use macro recording to see how to do this.
MSDN: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/ms195694(v=office.12).aspx