click the details of the Job_Share__c field and click the “Set Field Level Security” button at the top of the details page
!clip-35d4-04d2.png!
Click the “Visible” checkbox at the top to select all checkboxes and click save
!clip-0d80-6f22.png!
Sync mobile
goto the Forms tab and click add new button
Expected Result
Form name should only be displayed once
Actual Result
Form name is displayed twice
!clip-f01e-5cea.png!
Analysis
The Job_Share__c field gets created automatically via a trigger (?) when saving an eFormConfig entry. By default, the Field Level Security is not set to Visible on the new Job_Share__c field so it’s not an issue. But when the field is set to visible, mobile filters for the FX5__eForm_SObject__c name and matches it with the childRelationship object, so both the Job__c Master/Detail and the Job_Share__c lookup match.
We just need to filter out any Job_Share__c field childRelationships. We can do this because Job_Share__c should never be used by anything except the sync engine.
So we are at least back to where we were before the Sync v4 Config feature…
Related Cards
Originally found here but no card created: [alpine_mobile/#5451] Related to backoffice card 952: Adding a new eform entry for a ticket in mobile doesn't work
Setup the form eform object: Job Inspection for the job object. Ensured job share field on the eform object has read access to field user and admin user.
Login as the mobile user using 4.0.1.4033 , Trying to create the new form,
Job inspection was displayed twice (as attached)
!Capture-2de971.JPG!
After changing to the PR2737,
Job inspection Name displayed once,
Created an job inspection entry and double synced.. Verified entry is displayed correctly in both mobile app and backoffice
Followed the same tests for eForm on ticket and verified it listed once on mobile and entry is displayed correctly in the mobile app and backoffice
Test Case –
_C6993 Ensure Eforms are not duplicated when job_share field is given read access (#567_5)
Mingle Card: 5675 Steps to Reproduce
!clip-35d4-04d2.png!
!clip-0d80-6f22.png!
Expected Result
Form name should only be displayed once
Actual Result
Form name is displayed twice
!clip-f01e-5cea.png!
Analysis
The Job_Share__c field gets created automatically via a trigger (?) when saving an eFormConfig entry. By default, the Field Level Security is not set to Visible on the new Job_Share__c field so it’s not an issue. But when the field is set to visible, mobile filters for the FX5__eForm_SObject__c name and matches it with the childRelationship object, so both the Job__c Master/Detail and the Job_Share__c lookup match.
We just need to filter out any Job_Share__c field childRelationships. We can do this because Job_Share__c should never be used by anything except the sync engine.
However, if they add another lookup to Job (or whatever parent) they will get multiple entries. I tried to get the Related List Label but there appears to be no way to retrieve this value via the api (or apex for that matter: https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/questions/9140/access-the-related-list-label-for-a-lookup-relationship).
So we are at least back to where we were before the Sync v4 Config feature…
Related Cards
Originally found here but no card created: [alpine_mobile/#5451] Related to backoffice card 952: Adding a new eform entry for a ticket in mobile doesn't work
Test Result
Testing Notes:
Setup the form eform object: Job Inspection for the job object. Ensured job share field on the eform object has read access to field user and admin user.
Login as the mobile user using 4.0.1.4033 , Trying to create the new form,
Job inspection was displayed twice (as attached)
!Capture-2de971.JPG!
After changing to the PR2737,
Job inspection Name displayed once,
Created an job inspection entry and double synced.. Verified entry is displayed correctly in both mobile app and backoffice
Followed the same tests for eForm on ticket and verified it listed once on mobile and entry is displayed correctly in the mobile app and backoffice
Test Case –
_C6993 Ensure Eforms are not duplicated when job_share field is given read access (#567_5)