CUDOS v5 dashboard - both datasets resource_view and hourly_view have a calculated field of usage_date. The calculation of the field is just the actual field name of {usage_date}. This seems unnecessary. Many visuals are built referencing the calculated field and work fine. However, IHAC who tried to customize tables to create a week over week (WoW) table similar to MoM Trends by Product and MoM Trends by Account, but for a week over week granularity. Cx has set their summary_view query to monthly granularity to reduce dataset size and faster refresh time. So they built it with resource_view. They created a calculated field called 'WoW $ Product Code' that equals difference(sum(Cost),[{usage_date} ASC],-1,[{Product Code Pretty}]). In the calculated field they selected the usage_date calculated field, but in the field wells they referenced the actual column with name usage_date rather than the calculated field of the same name. This generated an error: " Table calculation attribute references are missing in field wells". We eventually discovered that by replacing the field wells column with the calculated field of the same name instead of the original column of that name, the table renders properly. If this calculated field provides no other value, it should be removed. I dont think calculated fields should have the same name as actual columns.
CUDOS v5 dashboard - both datasets resource_view and hourly_view have a calculated field of
usage_date. The calculation of the field is just the actual field name of {usage_date}. This seems unnecessary. Many visuals are built referencing the calculated field and work fine. However, IHAC who tried to customize tables to create a week over week (WoW) table similar to MoM Trends by Product and MoM Trends by Account, but for a week over week granularity. Cx has set their summary_view query to monthly granularity to reduce dataset size and faster refresh time. So they built it with resource_view. They created a calculated field called 'WoW $ Product Code' that equalsdifference(sum(Cost),[{usage_date} ASC],-1,[{Product Code Pretty}]). In the calculated field they selected theusage_datecalculated field, but in the field wells they referenced the actual column with nameusage_daterather than the calculated field of the same name. This generated an error: " Table calculation attribute references are missing in field wells". We eventually discovered that by replacing the field wells column with the calculated field of the same name instead of the original column of that name, the table renders properly. If this calculated field provides no other value, it should be removed. I dont think calculated fields should have the same name as actual columns.