Adding Additional Affected Users to a existing event
I’m using ETM 1.10.0 and assyst 11.8.4
Within the ETM I want to have additional affected users added to an event after it’s created. (We’re using the Destination process to feed details in the ETM after the event is created.)
The mapper resource is set the Event, and I use ‘Record to Update’ to search for the event. However, although the ETM datamapper gets the correct additional users to add, the result is always ‘No update needed’.
This is the only update required on the mapper. Is there something else I need to select, or some way to force the update, please?
Page 1 / 1
It’s possible the code that detects an update doesn’t work correctly for nested fields (as you will know - additional affected users is a bit of an oddity in terms of its mapping).
You can set the channel option ‘Force Update’, which will ignore the update detection and always do an update. Let me know if that works.
Reading this post made me curious about this behaviour. I can add that we seem to be experiencing the same behaviour of always getting Identified finalOperation: NOUPDATEREQUIRED, and that @Paul McCulloch’s idea to enable the ‘Force Update’ channel option works as a charm 😊 (at least for these test channels).
To add some more information about our setup: this was tested using ETM 1.8 and assyst 24R2 SU3.
I’m not sure if adding fields on a Record to Updatecan make a difference for a channel’s require update detection.
However just in case, I tested both with and without additionalAffectedUsers (without Force Update), and at least in these tests adding these extra fields during mapping did not have any impact, only Force Update did so.
Many thanks to you both for this. Yes, the Force Update works for me too.
We also use the IFS-given Mailbox Reader ETM channel and that will add the additional users to the event when one is created. Annoying that it works for creation but not for update.
Changing the ‘fields’ won’t maker any difference. The issue is that the mapping code is creating a value for the (non existent) field additionalAffectedUsersId. The update detection code then ignores the additionalAffectedUsers value (as it prefers IDs if they are present.
The only workarounds are either forcing the channel to always update, or updating some other field with some value.
