@KAMANUK were you able to identify the root cause? We are suddenly having this issue in our Production environment that started this morning.
Thanks Maria. They fall under the same organization. Let’s say they all fall under the manufacturing organization. We have 4 teams that does the same work, and each has a team leader. Currently each team leader has the same positions, and all members of the team has the same position. While Team Leader 1 is responsible for members 1-4 and leader 2 is responsible for members 5-8 and so on, because of how the supervisor access is all the team leaders can see team members 1-16 in their direct report list. It looks like with the position-based access that IFS provides, what we are looking to do isn’t an possible without creating new positions or new orgs.
@rsczerowski we are on the same Apps10 upd 18 as you and have the same issue. Did you get any feedback from IFS? We have a customization that reopens projects, processes these transactions and then closes the projects which is not ideal, and we would like to not have these transactions created in the first place. How are you handling this in your environment.
@VinuP do you know what the default value is and what some of the impacts might be that we need to consider?
Don’t think that is entirely accurate. As far as I know the Oracle license if ASFU, comes with restrictions. I have been trying to get some specifics from IFS as well on this.
@ABAL were you able to get confirmation from IFS on the ASFU usage restrictions?
@Nethmini Kosvinna did IFS provide a patch for this issue?
Is this still an issue for your team? We have a similar issue and it was identified it is due to the increasing number of handles as IFS was nto clearing them. R&D is working on a patch but they gave us a notification to help the users save their work before it crashes. Another work around was to increase the number of handles in your windows settings.
Did you add the clause in the permission set filter or the underlying view?
@lopespetro we got an edit applied to the default where clause in the underlying view to speed up this query. We added a clause that only the surveys that were tied to the objects on work orders assigned to techs would sync.
@SachinthaH @Mathias Dahl how do you change the view in object connection transformations? I am trying to set the target to a custom field on the OutInvoiceUtilPub.
@rcruz was IFS able to provide a patch for your issue?
Thanks for sharing this @martijn.vanbalkom. In our case we have open WOs and would like to extend the contract. The current work around provided by IFS is as follows. We have not yet tested it but will post it here in case it helps your case.“updating the fields Planned Start and Planned Finish on the work task to a blank value if they are beyond the current expiration date on the service contract heade”
@Hashmit did you get a resolution for this?
@TheoB was this resolved? if yes, could you share the resolution please. We are experiencing the same issue with a few screens.
@DavidSmile did you get any resolution for this?
@Djedai have you looked at report rules to send the email?
Hi Africa, We are running into the same issue. Did you get any feedback from IFS on how to handle this situation?
Thanks @kathlk. We have SSRS reports that get created after a survey is submitted and attached to the WO which we need to be synced to the app, which is why we had it at 3 minutes. We spoke with IFS yesterday and they recommended the same thing as you to schedule the sync batch job at a freq of 15 minutes or higher. At this time, we are upgrading to UPD18 and checking if an upgrade to Oracle 19c along with changes to sync rules schedules and adding some permission sets to check if that helps.
Thanks @kathlk. That’s exactly what happened, we reverted it back to 1. 2 entities take the longest one of them being the WorkObjectQuery which we’ve seen sync time of 1348526609770 which seems crazy. I looked at the query for this that is also using the mobile_sync_data_tab and this query at times is causing 100% CPU utilization on the database. We are currently running the Bath Sync database task every 3 minutes and some of the entities (including WorkFlowObjectQuery) are set up to be daily on the sync rules. Is this set-up ideal? Anything else we should be looking at?
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your username or 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.
