Improvment of attribute handling in replicated branches Hot
This idea regards improvments to the attribute handling in replicated Dimensions CM environments. Currently, the handling of manual attribute update compared to relplicator attribute update is inconsistent in how it handles attributes that are defined as "same for all revisions". Improvments could be done for Dimensions CM to handle attributes in replicated environments so it's aligned to what could be the expected behavior with this setting.
When replication is used in Dimensions CM, some features are by design restricted in the replicated target environment. One of these are update of attribute values. If an item is replicated from site A to site B, an error message will be received if an attempt is done to update the item attributes on site B. The error message will say that the operation is not allowed becase branch source is a replicated branch owned by another site.
However, there is a workaround to this restriction. If a new revision of the item is created, and if the new revision belongs to a branch that is owned by site B, then update attribute is allowed. And if attribute value is defined to be the same for all revisions, that will also impact the replicated item revisions owned by site A.
It would be an improvment to allow the update of attributes in a replicated branch (if it's defined as "same for all revisions"). This would create a more consistent behavior and makes sense since it's anyway possible to affect the attribute value via a different branch using above workaround.
Analog to this, it would also be good to improve the attribute updates that the replicator does in the target database so it also affect all revisions (regardless of branch) when attribute is defined to be same for all revisions. The current replicator behavior could lead to situations where attribute values are different, despite being defined as "same for all revisions".
For detailed problem descriptions, please refer to case 5486315 and 5486321.
Please login to view any attachments.
There are no user comments for this idea.