|
| | | 
StrataFrame Novice
 
Group: StrataFrame Users
Last Login: 05/26/2008 8:50:01 PM
Posts: 78, Visits: 407 |
| | Olá... Which the correct procedure for conversion of security tables? Because I had problems after the update of the version. For example: 1) If I to exclude tables of security of the DDT, the installing package it also excludes in the base destination. 2) If I to recharge tables, the update of the DDT duplicates and gives errors.
Rogério Mauri 
http://blog.licitec.com.br |
| |
| | |
StrataFrame Novice
Group: StrataFrame Users
Last Login: 05/26/2008 8:50:01 PM
Posts: 78, Visits: 407 |
| | |
| | | 
StrataFrame Developer
Group: StrataFrame Developers
Last Login: Today @ 11:13:06 AM
Posts: 4,104, Visits: 4,176 |
| Hmmm...I am not sure out you ended up with two tables of the same name...I will see if I can reproduce. The easiest thing would be the following though:- Manually remove the SFS tables and views
- Manually remove the Security related Deployment Data items in the Deployment Data section
- Now...and this is an important step...select the Object Name History and delete the SFS table name deletions from the Object Name History so once we import them back in they will not be deleted
- Now, Select the Profile -> Add Security Tables menu
- Once this is done, click on the Deployment Data node and then click the Deployment Data Package Wizard button
- Then go through the standard motion of bringing in the Security data for the desired project.
When you rebuild your package, you should be good to go. Since we now have the Data Verification process, any tables accidentally left in the Object Name History that could cause problems will be brought to your attention. If you get a clean bill of health once built, you are good to go. |
| |
| | |
StrataFrame Novice
Group: StrataFrame Users
Last Login: 05/26/2008 8:50:01 PM
Posts: 78, Visits: 407 |
| | Olá... Ok... The suggestion is correct. However, it verifies the option of update, without removal of tables. It is really duplicating new tables added in the last version (Audits). The step of cleanness of the description of adaptations is really very important.
Rogério Mauri
http://blog.licitec.com.br |
| |
| | |
StrataFrame Developer
Group: StrataFrame Developers
Last Login: Today @ 11:13:06 AM
Posts: 4,104, Visits: 4,176 |
| | We have started implementing the auditing (which will be fully released before long). So even though these tables are being imported, they aren't necessarily being used yet (through the 1.6.5 release). But having them there will not hurt anything. That is why you see the SFSAuditEvents table in the imported package file, but we have not yet released the framework side that allows you to interact with that table. Hope that makes sense. |
| |
| | |
StrataFrame Novice
Group: StrataFrame Users
Last Login: 05/26/2008 8:50:01 PM
Posts: 78, Visits: 407 |
| Ok... I suggest then only the correction in the DDT to prevent the duplicity in the assistant of update of security tables.
Rogério Mauri
http://blog.licitec.com.br |
| |
|
|