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.
Related
In my source block I want to be the amount of agents based on two different factors namely the amount of beds and visitors per bed. The visitors per bed is just a variable (e.g. visitors=3) and the amount of beds is loaded from the database table which is an excel file (see first image). Now I want to code this in the code block as shown in the example in image 2, but I do not know the correct code and do not know if it is even possible.
Simplest solution is just to do the pre-calcs in the input file and have in the dbase.
The more complex solution is to set the Source arrivals as:
Now, you read your dbase code at the start of the model using SQL (i.e. the query constructor). Make the necessary computations and create a Dynamic Event for each arrival when you want it to happen, relative to the model start. Each dynamic event then calls the source.inject(1) method.
Better still is to not use Source at all but a simple Enter block. The dynamic event creates the agent with all relevant properties from your dbase and pushes it into the Enter block using enter.take(myNewAgent)
But as I said: this is not trivial
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
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.
We are using NUnit to run our integration tests. One of tests should always do the same, but take different input parameters. Unfortunately, we cannot use [TestCase] attribute, because our test cases are stored in an external storage. We have dynamic test cases which could be added, removed, or disabled (not removed) by our QA engineers. The QA people do not have ability to add [TestCase] attributes into our C# code. All they can do is to add them into the storage.
My goal is to read test cases from the storage into memory, run the test with all enabled test cases, report if a test case is failed. I cannot use "foreach" statement because if test case #1 is failed, then rest of the test cases will not be run at all. We already have build server (CruiseControl.net) where generated NUnit reports are shown, therefore I would like to continue using NUnit.
Could you point to a way how can I achieve my goal?
Thank you.
You can use [TestCaseSource("PropertyName")\] which specifies a property (or method etc) to load data from.
For example, I have a test case in Noda Time which uses all the BCL time zones - and that could change over time, of course (and is different on Mono), without me changing the code at all.
Just make your property/member load the test data into a collection, and you're away.
(I happen to have always used properties, but it sounds like it should work fine with methods too.)
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