[Amal Vellappillil]

So I put debugger at the top of the presaveaction function and sure enough it got hit twice. So I still dont understand what is causing it to be called twice, but the workaround you mentioned skips the item creation the second time around.

Thank you so much for the workaround and tips on debugging.

[Amal Vellappillil]

Hi Alex,

Thank you for the quick turn around. I will give it a go.

– Amal Vellappillil

[Amal Vellappillil]

Hi Alex,

That would be awesome!

Thank you,
Amal Vellappillil

[Amal Vellappillil]

See attachment below. Hope it helps.

Attachments:

1. 

   create_new_rule_from_clipboard_data.jpg
   

[Amal Vellappillil]

try this

{ReleaseDate['MMMM dd, yyyy']}

[Amal Vellappillil]

Thank you for taking the time to explain the difference.

[Amal Vellappillil]

Hi Alex,

Thank you so much for the snippet.
Just out of curiosity. What is the difference between the way you have it vs comparing between beforeProperties and getFieldValue?

spjs.dffs.beforeProperties[fin] !== getFieldValue(fin)

-Amal Vellappillil

[Amal Vellappillil]

Hi Alex,

Thank you for getting back so quickly. I will use this workaround till a proper fix is released.

Thank you,
Amal Vellappillil

[Amal Vellappillil]

Awesome. Thank you so much for all the clarifications and directions.

Stay safe.

[Amal Vellappillil]

Hi Alex,

Thank you very much for clarifying the fact about JS in “Run these functions/evaluate these rules” does not have an impact on rule validation.

I have been using a generic version of what you had mentioned in your post with another list. I just thought about asking this question and see if there was a better way of getting this done. Here is the sample code. Just putting it out there just in case if it is helpful for others.

function queueEmailToBeSent(ruleID) {
    var initval, val, rule;
    
    jQspjs.each(spjs.dffs.ruleObj.ruleArr, function (k, v) {
        if (v.friendlyName === ruleID) {
            rule = v;
        }
    });

    if (!jQspjs.isEmptyObject(rule)) {
        var field = rule.triggerField;
        var type = spjs.dffs.fieldtype[field];

        initVal = spjs.dffs.beforeProperties[field];
        val = getFieldValue(field);

        if (type === "SPFieldBoolean") {
            if (val !== initVal && val) {
                spjs.dffs.handleEmailTemplate(ruleID, true);
            } else {
                spjs.dffs.handleEmailTemplate(ruleID, false);
            }
        }
        else
        {
            if (val !== initVal && !jQspjs.isEmptyObject(val)) {
                spjs.dffs.handleEmailTemplate(ruleID, true);
            } else {
                spjs.dffs.handleEmailTemplate(ruleID, false);
            }
        }
    }
}

As a follow up can you answer these as well?
1. Is it possible to find out if a rule is validated or not using JS?
2. Is it possible to manually evaluate a rule from within JS?

Thank you for all your help.

[Amal Vellappillil]

Thank you for the confirmation Alex.

[Amal Vellappillil]

I meant like if all the required fields are filled or if the user entered text in a number field etc (all the out of the box validations).

[Amal Vellappillil]

Hi Alex,

I was able to get the issue resolved. Here are my findings.
When i tried to display the “CheckedOut” field in a tab i was not getting any value for the label or for the actual value for this field. So this got me thinking and i went ahead and deleted the CheckedOut field from the list and then re-added a new column called CheckedOut to the list. From then on the problem seems to have resolved.

The initial “CheckedOut” field was created using the button in “MISC” tab in DFFS backend. I am not sure why this would have caused a problem.

Thank you for working on it and assisting with fixing the issue.

Amal Vellappillil

[Amal Vellappillil]

Hi Alex,

It seems like the issue has been resolved with the latest release from my initial testings. I will keep an eye on it and see if it comes up again when more and more users start using this version.

Thank you for fixing this.

[Amal Vellappillil]

Awesome, thank you for working on it.

[Author]

Posts