Validate Data - Adding Addl Validation Outside of BE Designer Cancel

1. Roger Blanchard

   

   381 posts
   Registered:
   29 Jun 2018
   21 Dec 2018

   Link to this post

   I have added Validation to a field using the Business Entity Designer. When the BE is created it has the following code in VaidateData.
   
   @GeneratedValidationStart.
           /* The following code is auto-generated. Don't insert custom code
              between the @GeneratedValidationStart. and @GeneratedValidationEnd.
              annotations as it would get overwritten when you update the Business
              entity. */
           FOR EACH eItem WHERE ROW-STATE (eItem) <> ROW-UNMODIFIED ON ERROR UNDO, THROW:
               Consultingwerk.OERA.ValidationHelper:IsInRange (BUFFER eItem:HANDLE, "DeptNum":U, 1, 99, "A DeptNum must be between 1 and 99":U).
           END .
   @GeneratedValidationEnd.
   
   If I needed to add addl validation where would I put it? In another FOR EACH eItem loop or just do not do this in the BE Designer? I need to make sure the selected codes for certain field have an associated record in another table. For example, I need to perform a CAN-FIND on the chosen Deptnum.  
          
   VALIDATE:CanFind(BUFFER eItem:HANDLE,
                               "DeptNum",
                               "Osprey.Pos.Dept.DeptBusinessEntity",
                               "eDept",
                               SUBSTITUTE ("FOR EACH eDept WHERE eDept.DeptNum = &1":U, eItem.DeptNum),
                                MessageFormatter:GetMessage("VALMSG":U, 2, "DeptNum")).
2. Mike Fechner

   

   319 posts
   Registered:
   14 Sep 2016
   Answered

   21 Dec 2018 in reply to Roger Blanchard

   Link to this post

   Custom validation code should be coded in another FOR EACH block. 
   
   The FOR EACH between the @GeneratedValidationStart. and @GeneratedValidationEnd. block will be overwritten by the Business Entity Generator everytime you re-generate a Business Entity. 
   
   Two FOR EACH loops on typically a very small number of modified temp-table records iss not really performance relevant. 
3. Roger Blanchard

   

   381 posts
   Registered:
   29 Jun 2018
   21 Dec 2018 in reply to Mike Fechner

   Link to this post

   Thanks for the response. That is what I did...just wanted to confirm.