Is there a way to do this via an event action or configuration rather than a customisation?
Thanks for the info @Nethmini Kosvinna, if we can’t do it that way, I can see on the JT_TASK and JT_EXECUTION_INSTANCE DB rows that it tracks the object version and has an object id.Is there somwhere where previous versions of the row/object are stored which I could query, or does the old version get wiped out on change and the version is only for informational purposes?
Yes, eagerly awaiting an update. I came across POC on Twitter which suggested WebLogic is vulnerable so we’ve locked things down until IFS provide an update.
We turned off all internet accessibility to our environments so they are only accessible on the corporate network directly. That way it’s impossible for the module to be called outside our network.They are behind a reverse proxy and firewall etc. but obviously they are unlikely to help with this vuln.By turning off internet access it means that we’ve lost the use of MWO and Aurena in the field for our maintenance team unless they’re on corporate wi-fi, and contractors now will have to use the terminal server.This is all in addition to other network-wide mitigations too of course.
So for Apps 10 does that mean we’ll get the patch soon, or do we have to wait until after 3 March to get it?
Thank you @Chathuri Peiris and @ereslk,I can confirm that option is turned off, so take it that its the bug in Update 15 causing this. I’ll log a case with support.
I’m also interested in finding this out.
Confirmed with Global Support it was a bug introduced in Update 15. We’ve now been provided a patch to fix it, which has resolved the problem.
Hi @jporter, no its still an ongoing problem unfortunately.
Hi @janise no, “TEMPCAL#” is not used by us to our knowledge. It looks to me to be an internal/behind the scenes calendar in the application? These are the calendars we have.
Hi @Pilar Franco,Yes you are correct, the Blocked For Use would just tell the system to not pay to that item. I think our team want to use it as a sort of accidental edit protection too.I agree it sounds like only options are to either restrict edit access on this screen more than it currently is, and/or do a custom configuration.
Thanks @Isuru Wijeratna, that wasn’t the answer I was hoping for, but since there’s only going to be a handful of records per year, I guess that is workable.
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.