i am trying to create an alert in a custom field in Employment Details that triggers an alert once it has detected that 47 and 107 months have passed since the date written in this field. "subrogation date".
The problem is that when i trigger the job "alerts and notifications" it just detects the field date once, that is to say that it will only trigger when the month 47 arrives but won´t trigger again when 107 months have passed since the subrogation date. So i can trigger the alert 1 time and then it doesn´t make any effect if i trigger the alert and notification jobs again, it won´t do anything.
The only way i am noticing that it triggers the alert again is when i perform a change in the same portlet and then i trigger the job. It looks like alerts only "restart" when a change is made in the portlet. (doesn´t have to be in the very field "fecha de subrogación")
I tried ot found more info and KBAs about it but don´t clarify exactly this situation, maybe is related with the fact that is not an effective dated portlet or something like that, but the portlet is in the list of portlets suitable for setting up alerts so theoretically should work by standard.
Does anybody know why this is happening or has any literature or a blog that can clarify it?
I wonder if it really is a limitation in the portlet, or rather the business rule itself.
I assume you've added a business rule that checks with just 1 IF statement and if then seen as TRUE it will trigger both notifications in X months (if so, was the special parameter added to ensure you can use 2 notifications at once)?
If not, what did you set up instead?
You could alternatively also go for an integration center job combined with an onsave rule, that checks when the date (in comparison with the date of today) meets X 2 for both scenarios to meet your requirement (i.e. integration center job that looks at today - 47 months and 1 that looks at today - 107 months) where the onsave rule then checks if the admin user that triggers the onsave does the change.
Well this explains it, if you want both clauses to trigger you need to have 2 separate business rules as, when the change is performed, it will only trigger the first IF (or the second as you have that today vs. date criteria in your IF). This means the 2nd or 1st IF won't be considered in every situation (where I'm not considering the scenario neither are applicable.
With the 2 separate business rules you'd have the highest probability of it triggering based on just 1 change/save. The only thing complicating this in your statement for me is this (and the 107 version):
Here you're basically saying that the action must have been taken 47 months roughly after the date, although I cannot imagine people do update it that specifically (as it would then still require the person to make the update again 107 months later as well). Normally those type of clauses are just used to make sure the date is not in the past (rather than really at the moment someone makes the change). Especially for the 107 clause I'd have expected a "is greater then" in the IF clause, as the exact moment of the change is way in the future.