Topic
  • 1 reply
  • Latest Post - ‏2013-03-22T20:42:17Z by scottsd
SystemAdmin
SystemAdmin
5842 Posts

Pinned topic Maximo 7.5 Type Ahead - not initiating Crossover Domain?

‏2013-03-21T11:10:23Z |
Base Services 7.5.0.3
Oracle 11G
WAS 7.0.0.23

Hi All

I'm working with the 'Type Ahead' functionality available in 7.5, specifically for a Name field used on the Incident application.

I have created a custom field MXREPORTEDBYNAME field on TICKET to hold the DISPLAYNAME from the person record as we want this available for reporting etc on the ticket.

In App designer we have enabled Type Ahead with the domain attribute being DISPLAYNAME being the Key field, see attached

The linked domain MXRREPORTEDBY is crossover which pulls in the Phone Number, Email Address etc from the Person record

The issue I am experiencing is that the crossover does not seem to fire when using Type Ahead (i.e. selecting a record from the type ahead list) the crossover fields are not populating even though the Display Name is entered as expected. When using the normal Lookup magnifying glass, the crossover works and all fields come across to the incident

Has anyone else had this problem using Type Ahead?

Thanks

Eugene
Updated on 2013-03-22T20:42:17Z at 2013-03-22T20:42:17Z by scottsd
  • scottsd
    scottsd
    121 Posts

    Re: Maximo 7.5 Type Ahead - not initiating Crossover Domain?

    ‏2013-03-22T20:42:17Z  
    Eugene, this worked for me, I attached my typeahead to the out of the box REPORTEDBYNAME field, and attached the crossoverdomain to the REPORTEDBYID field.

    When I used typeahead to select the REPORTEDBYNAME field, I have it set the REPORTEDBYID field (under it's Set Value setting). This triggers the crossoverdomain and populates the other ticket records.

    One thing to examine is the settings for your client side validation.

    Check these system properties:
    mxe.webclient.ClientEventQueue.threshold
    mxe.webclient.ClientEventQueue.timeout

    You might consider turning them down, I used 1 for the threshold and 100ms for the timeout. It causes the client side data to be sent to the server more frequently. Not recommended across high latency networks.

    See my attachment for this additional "set value" configuration off the REPORTEDBYNAME field.

    Thanks,
    Scott