Skip to main content

We are currently running v15.4 SU2 and are being limited to 100 items when using the Field Change Order Module.  We have enabled the toggle for “Ignore Retrieve Limit” however the results are the same (see image below).  We reviewed some of our internal documentation and can confirm that this worked as expected in v14.5.

We have also tested this in our QA environment with SU5 and it behaves the same way.  

We added an entry to the Retrieve Limit module but this also does not appear to have made any difference.  Is there something we are missing or is this maybe a bug?  

 

 

Nick,

I could not see why the search is not revealing more than 100 records when no limits is selected.  The QBE search should find the first 100 and then show arrows to display the next 100 rows.  Please submit a ticket to have this looked at by our support team.  

jacques


Will do, thank you for confirming Jacques.

-Nick


Hi Nick,

One thing to keep in mind is that there are also system limits besides the UI view only allowing 100 records.  I am sure you have seen messages like more than 5000 records which means the view is not truly unlimited if set that way in Retrieve Limits (similar concept to the Ignore Retrieve Limit).  Another limit is 25000 rows in SQL data queries for the system.

These are managed in the global.xml and is not advised to raise indefinitely as these query results need to be managed by the UI / system which can cause high resources (bandwidth, ram, etc.) for the browser when it might have to take actions against a list of selected orders.

Having said that, I do agree there should be a paging option and this is missing in the UI screen so Jacques advice to log a ticket is correct in my view.


Thanks for your input Phil.  In one of our pilot databases I increased the records limit from 100 to 125 and that worked in the FCO module, but as you pointed out this would impact other modules as well so we rather not go down this path.  I opened ticket US0074462@@1 last week and just spoke to Luis Aguero.  He was able to reproduce this in standard so it does appear to be a bug. 

 

-Nick


Reply