All, I've run into an issue in two production acco...
# suitescripts
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 5:11 PMAll, I've run into an issue in two production accounts and two sandbox accounts related to searching for a multi-select field value via a join. Unclear how widespread this issue is, but if anyone could try this out in a non-dev/test drive account it would be appreciated. Seems like a potential impact to any scripts out there, but it's unclear how widespread this issue is. Trying to get NS to raise the priority of this defect.
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 5:11 PMHere's the scenario:
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 5:13 PMTwo custom record types. One of the record types references the other via a list/record field. The "parent" record type has a multi-select field.
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 5:13 PMmessage has been deleted
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 5:13 PMmessage has been deleted
b
battk
05/21/2021, 5:14 PMtoo much work, make something that can be uploaded via sdf
battk
05/21/2021, 5:14 PMand hopefully reproduced
s
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 5:14 PMYeah good idea
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 5:14 PMI'll list the steps here anyways
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 5:16 PMThen, create two records for the parent (e.g. internal id 1 and 2) each with different values in the multi-select field. Then, create a record for the child (internal id 1) and reference the parent (internal id 2) --- the internal ids are important here.
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 5:16 PMThen, run this search:
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 5:16 PMrequire(['N/search'],
function(search) {
console.log(
search.lookupFields({
type: 'customrecord_ns_defect_child',
id: 1,
columns: ['custrecord_parent_record.custrecord_parent_field']
})
);
});
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 5:16 PMYou would expect to get the value stored in the parent's (internal id 2) multi-select field.
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 5:17 PMhowever, it returns the value from the other parent record
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 5:17 PMnon-multi-select fields work as expected
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 5:20 PMThe same unexpected results also happen when running a search via search.create via suitelets and map reduce scripts (apparently user event scripts are immune to this behavior)
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 5:42 PMHere's an SDF project with the two custom records
b
battk
05/21/2021, 5:53 PMyour reproduction steps are missing setting the sample fields on the parent
battk
05/21/2021, 5:53 PMyou may actually want to try including the instances in the sdf object files
s
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 6:23 PMSeth Duda
05/21/2021, 6:23 PMHere's a version of the project with records included
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 6:24 PMSimply install and then run this via your browser console:
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 6:24 PMrequire(['N/search'],
function(search) {
console.log(
search.lookupFields({
type: 'customrecord_ns_defect_child',
id: 1,
columns: ['custrecord_parent_record.custrecord_parent_field']
})
);
});
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 6:25 PMIf not impacted by the defect you should see:
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 6:25 PMmessage has been deleted
b
battk
05/21/2021, 6:27 PMmessage has been deleted
s
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 6:27 PMthanks for trying!
b
battk
05/21/2021, 6:27 PMit is now however easy to test
s
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 6:28 PMyup
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 6:29 PMHere's what you don't want to see:
Seth Duda
05/21/2021, 6:29 PMmessage has been deleted
Seth Duda
05/27/2021, 1:55 AMThis has been filed as defect 630277