I am using Rundeck for basic API calls periodically or manually. As of now, I have a lot of options the user has to provide, but most of them remains empty.
In fact, some of them depends on a previous one (e.g do you want X ? Then provide Y). Is there a way to display some options only if another has a given value ?
I would like not to create two different jobs but to keep only one.
One possible way is with Cascading Remote Options
This provides a mechanism for declaring hierarchical or dependent sets of option values.
Related
I have created a Informatica webservice workflow which takes 1 parameter as input. A Webservice provider source definition is used for this and mapping is a one-way type.
Workflow works fine when parameter is being passed. But when the same workflow is triggered from Informatica Power center directly (in which case no parameters are passed), mapping that contains webservice provider source definition takes 3 minutes to complete (Gives Timeout based commit point in the log).
Is it a good practice to run the webservice workflow from power center directly? And is there a way to improve its performance when triggered from power center directly?
Note: I am trying to use 1 workflow for both - 1) Pass the parameter from web 2) Schedule the workflow in Informatica
Answers to your questions below.
Is it a good practice to run the webservice workflow from power center directly?
Of course it depends on requirement - whether you need to extract data automatically from WS or not. If you pass parameter using some session then i dont see much issue here and your session is completing within time.
So, you can create a new session/command task/shell script to create a param file and then use it in original session so it is passed on to WS.
In a complex scenario, you may have to pass multiple values, in such case, i would recommend to use a parent workflow to call original workflow multiple times and change param every time before call.
Is there a way to improve its performance when triggered from power center directly?
It is really depends on few factors.
The web service - Make sure you are using correct input and output columns. Most of the time WS are sensitive to outside call and you need to choose optimized column to extract data for better performance. You can work with WS admin to know correct column.
If informatica flow is complex then depending on bottle neck transformation/s (source, target, expression, lookup, aggregator, sorter), we can check and take actions.
For lookup, you can add new filter to exclude unwanted data, remove unwanted columns etc.
For aggregator, you can use sorter before to improve perf.
... like this
I am on Enterprise Architect 13.5, creating a deployment diagram. I am defining our servers as nodes, and using attributes on them so that I can specify their details, such as Disk Controller = RAID 5 or Disks = 4 x 80 GB.
When dragging instances of these nodes onto a diagram, I can select "Set Run State" on them and set values for all attributes I have defined - just like it is done in the deployment diagram in the EAExample project:
Since our design will have several servers using the same configuration, my plan was to use the "initial value" column in the attribute definition on the node to specify the default configuration so that all instances I create automatically come up with reasonable values, and when the default changes, I would only change the Initial Values on the original node instead of having to go to all instances:
My problem is that even though I define initial values, all instances I create do not show any values when I drag them onto the diagram. Only by setting the Run State on each instance, I can get them to show the values I want:
Is this expected behavior? Btw, I can reproduce the same using classes and instances of them, so this is not merely a deployment diagram issue.
Any ideas are greatly appreciated! I'm also thankful if you can describe a better way to achieve the same result with EA, in case I am doing it wrong.
What you could do is to either write a script to assist with it or even create an add-in to bring in more automation. Scripting is easier to implement but you need to run the script manually (which however can add the values in a batch for newly created diagram objects). Using an add-in could do this on element creation if you hook to EA_OnPostNewElement.
What you need to do is to first get the classifier of the object. Using
Repository.GetElementByID(object.ClassifierID)
will return that. You then can check the attributes of that class and make a list of those with an initial value. Finally you add the run states of the object by assigning object.RunState with a crude string. E.g. for a != 33 it would be
#VAR;Variable=a;Value=33;Op=!=;#ENDVAR;
Just join as many as you need for multiple run states.
What is the best way to allow backend users to edit variables?
For example, I have a TYPO3 that sends out various e-Mail notifications and I want the backend users to be able to globally change the recipients. I started with template constants, until I found out, that backend users cannot edit the "template" module.
So what would be the best way to achieve this? I'm using Typo3 8.7.7
I would create a configuration record which can be edited by the backend users.
one way would be to include one file from fileadmin/ into the constants definition of typoscript. This file editors could change. But that could be a security risk, as the editors could define any constants.
the next option would be to define additional fields to the pages record, where these values could be set by any editor. In typoscript you access the field (maybe with slide = -1, so the value needs to be set just once)
another option: add these fields to a (special?) CE (ContentElement).
last option: use std CEs (e.g.HTML-content) at special pages or columns and use the content field (bodytext). (HTML-content has the advantage that the bodytext field is stored unmodified.)
Cleanest and leanest option would be option two (additional fields to table 'pages'). Option three and four are possible with pure typoscript, but you need to use CONTENT or RECORD object. If you use fix uids: remember that your editors might delete the CE and add a new CE with the same content (but another uid)
Addition:
As #Thomas-Löffler in his answer said:
you also can add a new kind of record/table, where an editor can insert or change the global values. Handling is like pages or tt_content. you can differ if your records are global (pid = 0, or special storage page) or dependent on page tree (rootpath), so you can have differnt values for different page subtrees.
I like Thomas‘ answer for providing a dedicated place to store the configuration option instead of putting it e.g. to pages because your configuration option is not bound to a page context.
Nonetheless for me personally it feels a bit odd to create a dedicated table for it. A table that would never hold more than one record.
That leads me to the conclusion that a key-value storage would be the right thing to use. Fortunately, TYPO3 ships System Registry. The only downside is that there‘s no interface for it so you‘d have to come up with your own forms to fill it. That‘s much easier if you go with Thomas‘ solution…
A clean and easy way is setting up a backend module with a form to set the email addresses.
Then you can grant the access right to a specific group or user and they are ready to go.
I am building a base workflow will support around 25 Customer
all customers they matches with one basic workflow and each one has little different request lets say one customer wanna send email and another one don't wanna send email
What I am thinking to make
1- make one workflow and in the different requirement I will make switch to check who is
the user then switch each user to his requirements
(Advantages)this way powerful in maintenance and if there is any common requirements
easy to add
(Disadvantages) if The customer number increase and be like 100 and each is different
and we expect to have 100 user using the workflow but with the Different
little requirements
2- make Differnt workflow for each customer which meaning I will have a 100 workflow
in the future and in declaration instantiate the object from the specific workflow
which related to the Current user
(Advantages) each workflow is separate
(Disadvantages) - hard to add simple feature this meaning write the same thing 100
time so this is not Professional
so What I need ??
I wanna know if those only the ways I have to use in this situation or I missing another technique
One way would be to break out your workflow into smaller parts, each which do a specific thing. You could organize a layout like the following, to be able to support multiple variations of the inbound request.
Customer1-Activity.xaml
- Common-Activity1.xaml
- Common-Activity2.xaml
Customer2-Activity.xaml
- Common-Activity1.xaml
- Common-Activity2.xaml
For any new customers you have, you only need to create a root XAML activity, with each having the slight changes required for your incoming request parameters.
Option #2: Pass in a dictionary to your activity
Thought of a better idea, where you could have your workflow have a Dictionary<string, object> type be an input argument. The dictionary can contain the parameter/argument set that was given to your workflow. Your workflow could then query for the parameter set to initialize itself with that info.
I have a requirement to allow a user to specify the value of an InArgument / property from a list of valid values (e.g. a combobox). The list of valid values is determined by the value of another InArgument (the value of which will be set by an expression).
For instance, at design time:
User enters a file path into workflow variable FilePath
The DependedUpon InArgument is set to the value of FilePath
The file is queried and a list of valid values is displayed to the user to select the appropriate value (presumably via a custom PropertyValueEditor).
Is this possible?
Considering this is being done at design time, I'd strongly suggest you provide for all this logic within the designer, rather than in the Activity itself.
Design-time logic shouldn't be contained within your Activity. Your Activity should be able to run independent of any designer. Think about it this way...
You sit down and design your workflow using Activities and their designers. Once done, you install/xcopy the workflows to a server somewhere else. When the server loads that Activity prior to executing it, what happens when your design logic executes in CacheMetadata? Either it is skipped using some heuristic to determine that you are not running in design time, or you include extra logic to skip this code when it is unable to locate that file. Either way, why is a server executing this design time code? The answer is that it shouldn't be executing it; that code belongs with the designers.
This is why, if you look at the framework, you'll see that Activities and their designers exist in different assemblies. Your code should be the same way--design-centric code should be delivered in separate assemblies from your Activities, so that you may deliver both to designers, and only the Activity assemblies to your application servers.
When do you want to validate this, at design time or run time?
Design time is limited because the user can use an expression that depends on another variable and you can't read the value from there at design time. You can however look at the expression and possibly deduce an invalid combination that way. In this case you need to add code to the CacheMetadata function.
At run time you can get the actual values and validate them in the Execute function.