Forum Discussion
NirajShah
7 years agoQrew Cadet
Thanks for all the feedback, I think I'm close to figuring this one out. Here's where I am now;
Here is the meat of my formula that I'd love feedback on. The version below was accepted by QB but for some reason fid 14 did not populate when the approve option was selected but did when reject was selected. As I commented below the redirect I have in the approve is not populating the target table and goes to an xml page (see below):
This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.
<qdbapi>
<action>API_EditRecord</action>
<errcode>0</errcode>
<errtext>No error</errtext>
<rid>1</rid>
<num_fields_changed>0</num_fields_changed>
<update_id>1545345688859</update_id>
</qdbapi>
var text approve = URLRoot() & "db/" & [_DBID_] & "?a=API_EditRecord&apptoken=xxxxxxxx&rid=" & URLEncode ([Record ID#])
& "&_fid_12=" & URLEncode("Approved")
& "&_fid_13=" & URLEncode(Now())
& "&_fid_14=" & URLEncode(User())
& "&rdr=" & URLEncode(URLRoot() & "db/xxxxx?a=API_EditRecord&apptoken=xxxxxx&rid=" & URLEncode ([Related Store Item]))
& "&_fid_14=" & URLEncode([# of Features Requested]);
//the redirect is not populating the fields and when i add another redirect it comes back with a syntax error
var text reject = URLRoot() & "db/" & [_DBID_] & "?a=API_EditRecord&apptoken=xxxxxx&rid=" & URLEncode ([Record ID#])
& "&_fid_12=" & URLEncode("Rejected")
& "&_fid_13=" & URLEncode(Now())
& "&_fid_14=" & URLEncode(User())
& "&rdr=" & URLEncode(URLRoot() & "db/xxxxx?a=dr&rid=" & ([Record ID#]));
Funny thing is, when I remove the redirect from the approval, fid 14 is populating fine.
Here is the meat of my formula that I'd love feedback on. The version below was accepted by QB but for some reason fid 14 did not populate when the approve option was selected but did when reject was selected. As I commented below the redirect I have in the approve is not populating the target table and goes to an xml page (see below):
This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.
<qdbapi>
<action>API_EditRecord</action>
<errcode>0</errcode>
<errtext>No error</errtext>
<rid>1</rid>
<num_fields_changed>0</num_fields_changed>
<update_id>1545345688859</update_id>
</qdbapi>
var text approve = URLRoot() & "db/" & [_DBID_] & "?a=API_EditRecord&apptoken=xxxxxxxx&rid=" & URLEncode ([Record ID#])
& "&_fid_12=" & URLEncode("Approved")
& "&_fid_13=" & URLEncode(Now())
& "&_fid_14=" & URLEncode(User())
& "&rdr=" & URLEncode(URLRoot() & "db/xxxxx?a=API_EditRecord&apptoken=xxxxxx&rid=" & URLEncode ([Related Store Item]))
& "&_fid_14=" & URLEncode([# of Features Requested]);
//the redirect is not populating the fields and when i add another redirect it comes back with a syntax error
var text reject = URLRoot() & "db/" & [_DBID_] & "?a=API_EditRecord&apptoken=xxxxxx&rid=" & URLEncode ([Record ID#])
& "&_fid_12=" & URLEncode("Rejected")
& "&_fid_13=" & URLEncode(Now())
& "&_fid_14=" & URLEncode(User())
& "&rdr=" & URLEncode(URLRoot() & "db/xxxxx?a=dr&rid=" & ([Record ID#]));
Funny thing is, when I remove the redirect from the approval, fid 14 is populating fine.
- AlexCertificati7 years agoQrew CadetI'm past the point of following exactly what you're trying to do here, but I notice that your approve code is defining fid_14 twice, is that intentional? You're trying to define 14 as the user field and then also do a redirect that subsequently defines it as something completely different?
- NirajShah7 years agoQrew CadetGood point - and this may be where I am messing up.
The first id 14 is being set as a user field in the current table. Then I am (attempting) to do a redirect to another table and record to define that tables fid 14 as a value from the first table.
I hope that makes sense in all my madness! - AlexCertificati7 years agoQrew CadetOh, that makes sense. I see it now, it seems syntactically sound! But I have never tried to do anything like that. Certainly your testing seems to indicate that that's the point at which the process breaks down. At some point you may have to take a pause on this approach and try one of Mark's alternate suggestions using methods other than one super-long url string.