Are there cases where TA_AUDIT_TRAIL doesn't record operations? For instance, if I ask how many distinct customer records have events for table_name = 'TX_CONST_CUST' and a specific constituency id I get about 7000, while I know there are about 60k customers with the constituency. And looking further, I only see records for TX_CONST_CUST generally in TA_AUDIT_TRAIL for the last two years (2021 and 2022). Is this a very recent addition?
This was added in 15.1.16.
Thanks! Have I asked this before? I feel like I've gone through this project before.
The issue is that we use interests to have customers sign up for our email discounts and promotions newsletter, and also interests to choose specific genres that they are interested in. But we have a significant number of customers who have genres selected, but do not have the interest assigned to the newsletter checked. Did the not understand that they were supposed to check that first? Did they uncheck it and not bother to also clear out the genres (why would they?) So I started by looking at dates on the newsletter interest, but TNEW doesn't deselect interests, it deletes them completely. Interests are not tracked in by the audit trail. But that interest also creates (and removes) a constituency, so I went digging for that, but it looks like that's also a dead end.
Not the greatest solution in the history of solutions, but we have used attributes with Yes/No values and Interests more or less interchangeably for years. What with one department dead set on using one, and another using the other, I basically said "fine" and created equivalent options on either side. Then I have a nightly procedure which takes the most recent update to one and marries it with the other. This has the advantage of "fixing" TNEW change issues. As all relevant interests/attributes EXIST in either Yes/No state, the deletion of one necessarily means that a TNEW change at the behest of the constituent took place changing a "Yes" from a "No" and thus my procedure makes the relevant change.
Again, a workaround of a workaround, but it gets me where I need to go.
Hi John - this is something that I have thought about for a while - would you be happy to share your code? If so jbramley@aucklandmuseum.com & greatly appreciated!
Jo
Sure, I will get that sent over. Obvious caveat the there are portions of this code specific to our instance and you would need to modify/edit/test it for your own use, but otherwise feel free to use this as a basis for what you need.