All the fields that are available to a user based on layout and sharing rules are available through the api, plus on occasion, fields that are not on a layout such as Id. It is more a function of the sharing model than api capability.
As to resetting a contact's self-service password, the anser is no.
kadev writes: >Is every field available via the API. If not, which fields >are not available?
...And Dave writes: >All the fields that are available to a user based on layout and >sharing rules are available through the api, plus on occasion, fields >that are not on a layout such as Id. It is more a function of >the sharing model than api capability.
My Q is related to this thread:
Unless I mis-understood what was said in a previous topic, I think you can only update a field that is actually displayed on the salesforce.com web page. Dave, is this right? If true, it seems like a nasty limitation because I need to keep LOTS of data items "behind the scenes".
I think what Dave means is that you can only access fields for which you "see" based on the profile of the user logged in via the api. So for example if you login via the api as sys admin, you can access anything.
Hi kadev,
All the fields that are available to a user based on layout and sharing rules are available through the api, plus on occasion, fields that are not on a layout such as Id. It is more a function of the sharing model than api capability.
As to resetting a contact's self-service password, the anser is no.
Cheers
kadev writes:
>Is every field available via the API. If not, which fields
>are not available?
...And Dave writes:
>All the fields that are available to a user based on layout and
>sharing rules are available through the api, plus on occasion, fields
>that are not on a layout such as Id. It is more a function of
>the sharing model than api capability.
My Q is related to this thread:
Unless I mis-understood what was said in a previous topic, I think you can only update a field that is actually displayed on the salesforce.com web page. Dave, is this right? If true, it seems like a nasty limitation because I need to keep LOTS of data items "behind the scenes".
Kevin