I am working on a small customization to the “User Account Maintenance” module, whereby two checkboxes are being added that correspond with two UD fields in the [Erp.UserFile] table. I need to bind the checkbox controls back to the established UD fields. However, upon checking the control properties, there does not seem to be a binding reference available for the added UD fields.
Did you close and re-open Epicor before going to the customization screen? The Client needs to load the new datamodel after regen. Also a good idea if that has been done to check the dbo schema for the UserFile view and see if your fields are there. They will be the last columns. If so then something is royally messed up ha ha
Josh - I did perform a restart of the client (and did so again just to make sure because… there’s the whole old-age-to-viable-memory issue that I personally deal with ). The client is reporting that the table and data model are synched so, I think I’m good there. I don’t see anything in the [dbo] schema (in SSMS) that would related to a user-specific table, so I’m not sure where to go beyond that.
José - I do see a [Ice.SysUserFile] table that appears to be quite similar to [Erp.UserFile]. I’ll try adding the UD fields to that table (assuming that Epicor’s business layer will allow me to do that in the Ice schema) and see how that’ll work out.
However, going back to the “ EpiBinding ” in the checkbox control properties, that property contains no binding reference for “ UserFile ”.
The reason I believe I need to target the [ Erp.UserFile ] table is because I performed a quick test edit on my own Epicor user account using “ User Account Maintenance ” and the results were visible on the corresponding user record within that table.
I set up my UD fields on the [Ice.SysUserFile] table instead of the original [Erp.UserFile] table and sure enough, the EpiBinding reference contained the UD fields as defined.
To @jgiese.wci’s credit, SSMS maintains the view in the “dbo” schema, as he had previously suggested that I check.
If I recall, yes. I created the UD fields on the [ Ice.SysUserFile ] table, which were merely “bit” (boolean) fields to accommodate the checkboxes on the “User Account Maintenance” form.
NOTE — We eventually scrapped the idea outlined above in favor of simply creating new Security Groups for this purpose. The security group method did the following things for us:
Helped us to avoid adding another customization to maintain
Leverage module and field security using out-of-the-box functions/processes
The original reason for that customization was to flag a user account as an authorized “official” for electronically signing specific quality inspection forms (generated via SSRS). After thinking the matter through (of course, well after I completed the original proof-of-concept), I realized that I could do the same thing by simply adding a few more security groups to define this purpose. Once the specific quality inspectors were added to these groups, I could then allow/disallow users from seeing the custom sign-off fields for this customized Quality module.
So, if you were a member of the “MDR Grade 1” security group, you would see the “MDR Grade 1” sign-off field in the customization, but you would not see the “MDR Grade 2”, etc.
If I went forward with my original idea outlined above, I would have been re-inventing existing security functionality already provided within the system.
You may have different reasons for adding customized fields to the “User Account Maintenance” module that are unrelated to user security concerning access to forms and fields. So, in that case, yes, you’d add your UD fields directly on the [Ice.SysUserFile] table and bind your form controls to them.
). The client is reporting that the table and data model are synched so, I think I’m good there. I don’t see anything in the [dbo] schema (in SSMS) that would related to a user-specific table, so I’m not sure where to go beyond that.
H-A-P-P-Y B-I-R-T-H-D-A-Y ! ! !