Thanks Dale. Based on lot of discussions on this topic, I decided not to
involve TR to avoid any complexities.(In-spite of benefits of using TR)
but looks like I would have to give that a try.
Also, I was thinking to try something like below:
('field' != 'DB.field') AND ('field' != "")
On Monday, December 3, 2012 5:44:10 PM UTC-8, Dale Jones wrote:
>
> **
> Try
> 'TR.field' != 'DB.field' AND 'TR.field' != $NULL$
>
> Dale Jones
> DCS
> Raleigh, NC
> 919-523-6034
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
> [[email protected]<javascript:>]
> on behalf of Raj [[email protected] <javascript:>]
> *Sent:* Monday, December 03, 2012 7:26 PM
> *To:* [email protected] <javascript:>
> *Subject:* 'field' != 'DB.field'
>
> ** Hi,
> I have gone through various discussions on 'field' != 'DB.field' on the
> forum here but still little confused.
> Currently, we have a code 'field' != 'DB.field' and looks like it tracks
> all changes to the field.
> It is even tracking null value change as well.
> For Example, I am updating Audit log something like "value changed from A
> to B".
> But I do see entries of "value changed from to "
>
> Would this Run If qual in filter also tracks when a null is pushed to
> this field from API.
> My understanding is when a null is pushed, field has a transaction value
> of null but which is = to DB.field, then why is this filter firing?
> Did anyone encounter such a case?
> As I would like to stop logging "value changed from to " in the audit,
> as it is of no use.
> Pl advise.
> Thanks,
> Raj
> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
"Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
