Protecting prompts based upon row data (AREV Specific)
At 11 MAR 1999 06:31:48PM Victor Engel wrote:
I am trying to protect window prompts based upon data in the record being loaded. In order to do this I set WC_W%(PROMPT_NO) to "P" for each field to be protected. The problem is that in some situations all prompts except the key prompt must be protected. In this scenario what happens is that the window processor gets into an infinite loop as it looks for the next prompt to land on. Any solution?
To make things more complicated, this is HR-1, which does some of its own logic in this regard. It colors all editable fields red. Using the technique I described above, the protected fields remain red (or change to red if they are not red already) despite the fact I have made them protected fields. I would like to correct this problem also, although it is just cosmetic, so I don't care about this problem as much.
I know HR-1 has row and field level security, but not field level security based upon row information. Any suggestions greatly appreciated.
P.S. I tried MFS-level security, but the problem with this is that all the commuter subroutines are executed and the security is not checked until the F9 key is pressed.
At 12 MAR 1999 03:10AM [email protected] onmouseover=window.status=why not click here to send me email?;return(true)", [url=http://www.sprezzatura.com" onMouseOver=window.status=Why not click here to visit our web site?';return(true)]Sprezzatura Group[/url] wrote:
Have you tried wc_wlocked?
World Leaders in all things RevSoft
At 12 MAR 1999 08:14AM Matt Sorrell wrote:
Victor,
What I do in a situation like this is set at least one prompt to 'VP' instead of 'P'. This makes the prompt protected, but allows the cursor to land there. Prevents the infinite loop (which I hate).
Matt
At 12 MAR 1999 10:01AM Victor Engel wrote:
I tried that, but only the the key field, which obviously doesn't work. The problem with using another field is I will have to put in logic to find one, not necessarily a big issue. I think I'll try Andrew's idea first.
At 12 MAR 1999 11:24AM Victor Engel wrote:
I tried it, but there is other code that seems to supercede this, so it did not work.
At 12 MAR 1999 11:26AM Victor Engel wrote:
I thought I had already tried that unsuccessfully. I just tried it again and it worked, so I must have been doing something wrong or run into a cache problem or something.