3 weeks ago
Hi,
We’ve encountered another usability issue and a bug in the graphical views when using UNION. Let’s see if anyone has a different approach that makes it work.
We have views that perform a union of different data sources. The problem arises when one of the data sources adds new fields. When opening the UNION view, it indicates that the new fields have been excluded from the projection, which is fine so far.
The issue comes when you include them back in the projection, and DSP automatically adds them as new fields to the UNION:
Here’s an example:
We have a field "Line Currency" (technical name: LINE_CURRENCY) that is already in the UNION OUTPUT and mapped by other sources, but not by the source we are updating.
Now that source is updated and the field is added. When we make it visible, that’s when it does the "magic" and breaks everything.
The added field is mapped to the existing "Line Currency", but it adds also the added field, generating the output with 2 fields with same Techical name.
Bonus Track: The validation of the UNION is OK, but the validation of the view FAILS due to duplicated values in techincal names (It seems that UNION is more "laid-back" 😄 ).
This repeats every time we update a view in the union … creating risk and lack of confidence because it modifies something automatically, generating errors, and we have to manually review the process to delete duplicate fields, ensure they are correctly mapped, and of course review everything again. With an average of about 40 fields and 10-15 sources per union, we end up losing a lot of time on this.
Maybe someone has another way to do it?
Request clarification before answering.
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 8 | |
| 6 | |
| 6 | |
| 3 | |
| 3 | |
| 3 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.