Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Issue214 activation without trigger #215

Conversation

jondavis9898
Copy link
Contributor

Add global setting to support bypassing of trigger exists check during rollup summary activation.

Additional capabilities could be added to specify regex or "pattern" to enforce in addition to or instead of the bypass. Given the possible combinations of naming conventions individual use, a simple bypass flag was added. By default, triggers are still required to support activation.

Sync with latest from upstream
…rced on updates

Had two options here - refactor to a common validation method that is
called by both flavors of onValidate or enable
Configuration.OldOnUpdateValidateBehaviour.  Decided to go with the
former to avoid legacy based code.
@afawcett
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for this, though this validation can be disabled by using Developer mode, that was the original intent for your use case here. Though it seems folks do want to full emulate what the triggerHandler does. So what is missing is in the API a means to do the work triggerHandler does basically (which although public was not really intended to be an API). So something like an override for dlrs.RollupService.rollup, e.g. dlrs.RollupService(Map<ID, SObject> oldRecords, Map <ID, SObject> newRecords). This new API entry method would look for Developer mode DLRS records (like the current API entry method). Make sense?

@afawcett
Copy link
Collaborator

Take a look at the discussion on this issue for a bit more background, #165.

@jondavis9898
Copy link
Contributor Author

#165 showed me the light and clued me in to what I think you are thinking. Updated my comments in #208 with a summary. If my understanding is correct, I think exposing an API to mimick triggerHandler would meet my need and be a much better approach than what I proposed.

@jondavis9898
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think this can be closed as we've shifted to approach in PR #208

@afawcett afawcett closed this Jul 31, 2015
@jondavis9898 jondavis9898 deleted the issue214-activation-without-trigger branch August 13, 2015 01:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants