Salesforce Developer Community

Chatter

Feed
3

Best Answers
2

Likes Received
0

Likes Given
13

Questions
15

Replies

We have our sandbox upgraded to Winter '12, but our production environment is still on the old version. The following code prints "false" on our sandbox, but "true" on production. I can't seem to find mention of this on line, but it looks like they work differently!

Set<Id> x = new Set<Id>{
     '012A0000000qv2wIAA'
    ,'012A0000000qv2xIAA'
    ,'012A0000000qv2yIAA'
    ,'012A0000000qv2zIAA'
};

System.debug(x.contains('012A0000000qv2z'));

Note that the Set contains 18-character IDs, and we're asking if it .contains() a 15-character ID. I don't mind it working one way or the other; just weird that it's behaving differently.

loneboat
September 27, 2012
Like
0

0 replies

SOQL problem when querying ActivityHistory as a subquery...

I'm querying ActivityHistory, and it seems that you can only query it as the object of a SUBQUERY against some other object. That's fine - I changed my query to query against the Account object, with ActivityHistory in a subquery. Seemed to work fine. But in testing, I found a case where the ActivityHistory subquery returned MORE than 200 results. I started getting this error:

    FATAL_ERROR|System.QueryException: entity type ActivityHistory does not support query

... in the debug logs. It seems to be only an issue where an Account has more than 199 related entries in the ActivityHistory object. To see if this was the cause, I tried putting a LIMIT 199 and a LIMIT 200 clause in the subquery. Sure enough, when I use 199 (or anything lower) it works fine. Using 200 (or anything higher) results in the error above.

My code is below. One thing to note is that the query is in a FOR loop. One theory I have as to why it's producing the error for high values of the LIMIT clause is that perhaps 200 is the point where the FOR loop is batching the query into separate chunks - maybe the second chunk doesn't qualify as a 'subquery' (since it's running separately?) - and SalesForce isn't liking that.

Oh, and one more thing: The same code seems to run fine in the Anonymous Apex editor (though I had to make a few modifications - replacing the inline variables with explicit values). Weird that the anon editor is perfectly happy with it, but the SFDC servers don't like it.

Anyway, I'm off to do some more troubleshooting. Anyone have any insights?

Thanks!

Code:

    //  ActivityHistory's on Account
    for (Account a : [  //  you can't query ActivityHistory directly; only in a subquery against another object type
        SELECT
             Id
            ,Name
            ,( SELECT
                    ActivityDate
                   ,ActivityType
                   ,CRM_Meeting_Type__c
                   ,Description
                   ,CreatedBy.Name
                   ,Status
                   ,WhatId
                FROM ActivityHistories
                WHERE ActivityType IN :included_activity_history_types
                //LIMIT 200
            )
        FROM Account WHERE Id = :accountId
    ]) {
     for (ActivityHistory ah : a.ActivityHistories) {
        if ( ah.WhatId==null ) { continue; }  //  skip adding activities without a WhatId

        if (((string)ah.WhatId).startsWith('001')) { //  only add ActivityHistory's tied directly to an Account (the query above pulls back all ActivityHistory's on related Oppty's as well)
            activities.add(new ActivityWrapper(ah));
        }
     }
    }

loneboat
June 07, 2012
Like
0

3 replies

SOQL - Only return objects where subquery has results?

Here's my query:

        SELECT 
              Id
            , Name
            , UserRole.Name
            , Profile.Name
            ,(  SELECT
                     Id
                    ,CRM_Territory_Type__c
                FROM Territories__r 
                WHERE CRM_Inactive__c=false 
            )
        FROM User
WHERE Territories__r.null
        ORDER BY Name

Is there any way to get this query to ONLY return results where the subquery has results?

Thanks!

loneboat
April 27, 2012
Like
0

0 replies

Passing in initial values to a VF page via something other than URL params?

I have a VF page [A] which I would like to have open another page [B]. [A] needs to send some information to [B] (a few ID's). I can do what I want just fine by using getParameters().put('param1', 'param1 value') on the PageReference I'm creating in [A]. The problem is that the values are being sent as url parameters ('?param1=param1 value'). This makes my URL ugly, and also is a bit misleading, because the values I'm sending in are only for INITIAL values (which change as the user interacts with the page). Seeing them persist in the browser's address bar is confusing.

So my question is: Is there any way to pass a value from [A] to [B] such that they do not show up in the browser's bar? I guess I could just really quickly shove the values into a cookie, but that seems like a weird way to do it.

loneboat
April 19, 2012
Like
0