We are encountering this error when saving a business process in our local Creatio 8.1.3.6789 instance (PostgreSQL, SalesEnterprise + Marketing + ServiceEnterprise package):
Error occurred when saving: 23503: insert or update on table "SysLocalizableValue" violates foreign key constraint "FKYru8eiQRBeFoEfawvRwKSlCy2o"
The issue happens for all team members and seems related to missing schema or metadata.
Is this a known issue with this Creatio version? Any recommended fix or workaround?
It seems you don't have the corresponding record on the SysCulture table, try to enable the postgres log and get the insert or update that raises the error.
Allow me to clarify how the import process works. When importing data into Creatio, you are essentially transferring the information from your Excel file into the corresponding database table. Each detail in Creatio corresponds to a different object or database table. Therefore, during an import, data can be inserted into one table or object at a time.
Import to Contact/Accounts have custom core logic applied, but all other objects work with logic described above.
Hello, answer has been already provided , but we will duplicate it below for your convenience:
"Thank you for your question!
Allow me to clarify how the import process works. When importing data into Creatio, you are essentially transferring the information from your Excel file into the corresponding database table. Each detail in Creatio corresponds to a different object or database table. Therefore, during an import, data can be inserted into one table or object at a time.
Import to Contact/Accounts have custom core logic applied, but all other objects work with logic described above.
While importing the excel file, containing the Competitors list, we need that the competitors list, is assigned to this specific Opportunity '495 / Fast Works / Sale of Goods'
We want to obviously achieve this without manually adding the '495 / Fast Works / Sale of Goods' as a separate column for all the records of the excel.
Is there any example in the Code-Base, or any other workaround where this is achieved?
I am currently generating multiple report templates, some of these templates need to show list components attached to a record. For example, A loan application that has multiple collaterals attached to it or a payment schedule stored in a list component. How do I achieve this?
Hi. Newbie here, so bear with me. Best I start with an example --
We have 200+ users who are sales reps and 2 Admins.
Some of these sales reps are managers of a sub-set of other subordinate reps.
Now, a rep quits, and it's up to an admin (in another country BTW) to manually go in and reassign his dozens of opportunities to a new sales rep. This is a task his manager should be able to do, but can't (because only an admin can change other users' records).
This is just one example of a typical issue we run into, that could be fixed by giving "modify" rights to one user over certain other user's records -- or a "superuser" as exists in our other systems.
In Creatio, I am told only the individual rep can change his own "opportunities". His manager cannot. (The Admins of course can change everything about everyone, so logically we can not give admin rights to the managers.)
Is there a way around this? Perhaps the next release of Creatio will have some sort of granularity of "rights"?
Note, this often means you also need to setup object/record permissions for things based on these roles as well, instead of by users (so the permissions can be inherited by the managers of the role). For example, you could add record access permissions that if anyone in "sales" creates a record, that edit permissions is given to anyone in the "sales managers role".
Note, this often means you also need to setup object/record permissions for things based on these roles as well, instead of by users (so the permissions can be inherited by the managers of the role). For example, you could add record access permissions that if anyone in "sales" creates a record, that edit permissions is given to anyone in the "sales managers role".
Ok, Thanks -- that's kind of what I thought, with my rudimentary experience with roles (and Creatio in general).
So, applying this to our large sales organization ... Instead of implementing a single "sales" role, we would need to implement a "superuser" role, but for each sales division -- perhaps?
For example, we have 8 sales regions, like "Asia" and "Europe" and "South America". There are 30-50 sales reps in each region. We don't want all their "issues" trickling up to one admin, so as I mentioned we want a "SuperUser" in each region: "SuperUser-Asia", SuperUser-India" and so on. I guess these would be "management" roles in Creatio.
So, we would have to divide up the Sales Reps (users) into separate orgs (one for each region) so that their data would be visible to their SuperUser? Can I create separate orgs in Creatio, all living underneath the main Company org?
Thanks -- any suggestions you have are appreciated!
Yes, the roles are hierarchical. Each sub role inheriting the permissions of the roles before. You can have a role for sales, then sub roles for each division. Each division can have a managers role which could give them inherited permissions for the division they manage.
I will have to review this with our integrator. They are telling us that in the forthcoming release of Creatio, there are some enhancements to roles and permissions -- Are there any hints or documentation as to what this might be? We need to allow certain roles to be able to edit specific data but not all.
(For example, a salesman creates a customer account DuPont Paints and can assign it to a "master" account DuPont International. This is really something that his local manager admin should also able to do, but can't)
Given your extensive investment in Qlik and the need to integrate it with data from Creatio, we recommend using Creatio’s REST API over OData for this integration.
While both options are available, the REST API offers several key advantages:
1) Better performance: REST is more efficient and lightweight, especially when handling large datasets.
2) Greater flexibility: you can define exactly what data is needed and apply filtering or transformations before it's sent to Qlik.
3) While OData comes with various preconfigured options, REST allows you to easily customize the requests
OData can be used for basic, read-only access, but it's generally more rigid and less performant — especially when dealing with high-volume analytics scenarios like yours.
We have heavily invested in Qlik as our BI tool (and have hundreds of users). Our task is to connect finance data with the sales data we have in Creatio. We have an IT team that can set up the connection so I assume they are familiar with connectors like REST API, but would you recommend using ODate over REST API ?
Given your extensive investment in Qlik and the need to integrate it with data from Creatio, we recommend using Creatio’s REST API over OData for this integration.
While both options are available, the REST API offers several key advantages:
1) Better performance: REST is more efficient and lightweight, especially when handling large datasets.
2) Greater flexibility: you can define exactly what data is needed and apply filtering or transformations before it's sent to Qlik.
3) While OData comes with various preconfigured options, REST allows you to easily customize the requests
OData can be used for basic, read-only access, but it's generally more rigid and less performant — especially when dealing with high-volume analytics scenarios like yours.
(I'm not the dev that's going to do this, but ...)
If we create an OData connection with Qlik, are there already some methods in place so that Qlik automatically sees all data and tables in Creatio? Or do we need to build out methods to see specific data?
Or, perhaps it's worth buying a Creatio OData connector that has all this built out already? (If there is such a thing)
Actually, the better question around how the BI (in my case Qlik) works with the data --
When we build out the OData datasource that Qlik will connect to, we need to specify each table that should be "available" to Qlik, true? (There is no "include all tables" I assume.) Ideally, we want all data from all tables, then in Qlik we will do the filtering of which data is needed on each report.
For a no code approach - there really isn't an exact match, the closest possibility is the action "Continue in other page" which will open it in the default page for the entity type (assuming the mini page is set up as the "Add" page). However, that doesn't actually save the record first (just validates it).
For a code approach, you'd need to add a save request handler see here, then use:
The navigate here part would use this and open the record in edit mode.
Also, it likely would not be a good idea to do this in the base page for all mini pages, since dialogs can be used for different purposes, not like how it was for mini pages in classic (although I suppose you could check if the current mini page is in add mode).
For a no code approach - there really isn't an exact match, the closest possibility is the action "Continue in other page" which will open it in the default page for the entity type (assuming the mini page is set up as the "Add" page). However, that doesn't actually save the record first (just validates it).
For a code approach, you'd need to add a save request handler see here, then use:
The navigate here part would use this and open the record in edit mode.
Also, it likely would not be a good idea to do this in the base page for all mini pages, since dialogs can be used for different purposes, not like how it was for mini pages in classic (although I suppose you could check if the current mini page is in add mode).
I'm importing a file with Leads and needing to assign them to a user. Is there a way for seeking a user by email, not by full name? Because we have a lot of contacts with the same name in the database.
Yes, it is possible to perform the mapping this way. You need to map the Email field from excel file to the Owner.Email field, which means you need to "drill down" into the column of the object referenced by the Owner column.
Here’s a guide on how to achieve this: I hope this helps!
We are in the Account form page. The account form page has three lookup fields (Type, Category, Primary Contact) We want to filter the Primary Contact based on the (Type and Category). How can this be achieved in freedomUI. Any code example?
Note, since that post, the "crt.OpenLookupPageRequest" request has been replaced by the new request "crt.OpenSelectionWindowRequest", so use this new request name instead of what is listed in that post)
Note, since that post, the "crt.OpenLookupPageRequest" request has been replaced by the new request "crt.OpenSelectionWindowRequest", so use this new request name instead of what is listed in that post)
I'm trying to get the "Resulting collection" out of a Read data step in a Business Process in order to iterate over it, but whatever I try the "Resulting collection" is null/empty when trying to access it later in BP. The "Collection of records" parameter for the step is populated with the expected number of records, but since it's an ICompositeObjectList, it can't be iterated over using an index (e.g. entityCollection[0]) which is really what I would like for this solution - using a foreach loop in code isn't ideal, as then we have to write everything in code rather than using the no code BP steps available to us.
I've tried many things including changing packages to not compile into a separate assembly and using the Resulting collection parameter in a subprocess BP by binding the output param to a BP param, and have even checked in the ReadDataUserTask code using Visual Studio to debug and check values, and it seems that the ResultEntityCollection ("Resulting collection") is being set correctly there, but it just doesn't seem to make it back to the Business Process. Does anyone know why this might be the case? And if there's any resolution? Currently working in 8.1.3
To add some details to what I'm seeing, this is the Read data step:
This is a formula step to try to see what should be coming out of this step in the Resulting collection:
And this is my User Task step which takes an EntityCollection parameter:
Before the Formula step, the value of the "Entity collection" parameter is null, afterwards it appears in the BP trace logs as being "", so something does change - below is shown what the User Task step's Inspect looks like after it fails:
So the BP parameter value is "" for the EntityCollection, but it's null for passing into the User Task, and that's what we see in the User Task debugging in Visual Studio (which causes the error, as we get an "Object reference not set to an instance of an object" error when trying to use it).
When checking what the OOTB ReadDataUserTask code is setting to the ResultEntityCollection parameter (which is the parameter for "Resulting collection") we can see that it is correctly being passed the EntityCollection:
It just doesn't seem to be able to be used afterwards in the BP.
Anyone have any knowledge on why the Resulting collection parameter from a Read data step in a BP would be null despite it seeming to come back populated from the C# code?
Just to clarify, does this not work even in the case when the collection is passed to a subprocess — does the same error occur in that scenario as well?
I am currently trying to update the standard Invoice object record's field; "payment amount" with a calculated sum collected from a custom object called: "Payments" from it's "Amount" field.
-Payments Record Added has the filter conditions of, "Amount is filled in" - Payments Record Deleted has no filters - Payments Record Modified has the, "Changes expected in any selected fields = 'Amount'"
And this is the current Invoice Record:
The Payment Amount field AND the test payment amount field I created show no input despite refreshes and alterations. I would appreciate any suggestions on my wrongdoings, as this is a more fundamental business process I have used before.
Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.
Thank you Ryan. I must have overlooked that detail while reviewing other work! I am now having a new issue where the calculation element shows an incorrect sum.
For instance, when setting the Calculate Element to, "OR" I will have one record with an amount of $4500. When modified, it will then show a sum of $94,500.
But if I set it to, "AND", then the Calculate Element will show $0 for both the input and output.
I am going to answer my own question here for my reply, as I discovered that my filters were not working correctly and the calculated sum was adding ALL records of the Payments object:
I found that for the "Calculate Element" filters, not only did I not need the
"id ≠ Payments.Record Deleted.Unique identifier of record"
But that the filter of:
"Invoice = Read Invoice from IWPayments.First item of resulting collection.Invoice"
Should be:
"Invoice.Id = Read Invoice from IWPayments.First item of resulting collection.Invoice"
I thought I had set it to that already, but I must have overlooked it while troubleshooting other solutions.
