Replacing subject by variant

Sorry for not finding this topic if it has been answered before, search left me empty-handed.

To relax restrictions on a variant as compared to the subject, I want to

replace the occurrences of the subject by a new variant ‘default’

relax restrictions on the subject

create the new variant 'unconfirmed_order_line’ (as an example)

What is the preferred method of screening my model for occurrences of the current base subject, to replace links where it is targeted with the new ‘default’ variant?

The problem I face is that references at data model level do not allow me to define user interface properties such as detail variant, and user interface screens only expose links to details, not to parents.

Targeted searches using menus/reachable objects only allow shortest path, not all paths to a subject (and in my case, find the path via the default menu, not even the main detail occurrence because that takes another node and is not the shortest path.

Is there a lazy way to reach my goal?



Best answer by Anne Buit 27 May 2020, 08:26

View original

2 replies

Userlevel 7
Badge +5

Hi Boudewijn,

The Full model screen under Projects would probably the easiest approach to find all references pointing to this specific table as a detail.

Menu items, variant details, variant look-ups, task- and report look-ups and variant task- and report look-ups will be a bit trickier.

You can use the Applied to tab in the Subjects modeler to find all entities in the model that use this table. Keep in mind that the Applied to tab also includes usage of variants of the selected subject so you'll have to check them to see if they use the base table before updating them.

If this is something of a concept within the model of your application, you could create some validations to check for usage of the base table when a variant named ‘default’ is present. Or even update them automatically to this ‘default’ variant using the dynamic model.

Hi Anne,

Thanks for the pointers. The ‘applied to’ tab especially is helpful.

I will keep the suggestion for validation and dynamic model in mind. The application is mostly in maintenance mode, large overhauls of dynamic model are not in scope at this time.