Status: Declined
The cursorField in HLLX is currently numeric and differs for a field based on the calling procedure. Best example is between package create and package update. In one the work request is 12 in the other it is 13.
The best solution is for the cursor field to be the name of the field Instead of a number. That way when I write validation code I can share the code between processes without having to account for it In my code. You want the same edits for both update an create in most cases.
Hi Tom,
I agree, that would be easier. But as a bypass, I notified that the difference between package create and update is consistent
Therefore the following lines of code will make your code consistent between create and update
I have created a routine that is called in all my HLLX. It creates a variable shortFunction
shortFunction=left(function,4)
In the HLLX of package create/update I introduced the following line of code to make the cursorField easy to set and the HLLX can be used for both functions :
if cursorField'' then if shortFunction='PUPD' then
cursorField=right(cursorField-1,3,'0')
Hope this helps
Best regards
Johan
Status: Declined
The cursorField in HLLX is currently numeric and differs for a field based on the calling procedure. Best example is between package create and package update. In one the work request is 12 in the other it is 13.
The best solution is for the cursor field to be the name of the field Instead of a number. That way when I write validation code I can share the code between processes without having to account for it In my code. You want the same edits for both update an create in most cases.
Of course I mean "noticed" instead of "notified" :-)
Status: Declined
The cursorField in HLLX is currently numeric and differs for a field based on the calling procedure. Best example is between package create and package update. In one the work request is 12 in the other it is 13.
The best solution is for the cursor field to be the name of the field Instead of a number. That way when I write validation code I can share the code between processes without having to account for it In my code. You want the same edits for both update an create in most cases.
As the HLLX functionality has been GA for quite some time now, making the type of change being requested here could have a significant impact on many customer’s existing exits. Therefore this is not something we are likely to implement unless a significant number of customers request or vote on this Idea.
Marking Idea as rejected for now, but it is possible that this could be revisited at a future time.
