I'm working with UIPath to automate some processes in Microsoft Dynamics AX 2012. When I use UIPath to indicate a button to press or a field to type into, UIPath gets a brainfreeze (stops working) and just chews on it for 3-6 minutes before it has completed. It works, but it take a ridicolous amount of time to make a process, as this is the case at every click. There is no problem when the process is running from orchestrator - it is only during development and only in AX. In all other programs it only takes a split second.
Does anyone know what causes AX to be this slow and how to fix it?
I have attached a video here, where you can see the issue: Link to video showing performance issues
Thank you in advance
This probably happens because the UiPath activity tries to load the whole table (including what is not directly visible) into memory. To workaround this, you might just filter your table in a way that you just have a few rows visible before you Indicate on screen the specific element.
Note that a similar behavior might occur during run time if there is a lot of data to capture.
UI Framework needed to be swithed. Pres F4 to go switch to AA before hovering over AX.
Related
I have a AX2012R2 CU6 (build&client 6.2.1000.1437, kernel 6.2.1000.5268) with the following problem:
On AP>Journals>Invoices>Invoice Journal>lines (form LedgerJournalTransVendInvoice), when I select Vendor as Account type and then activate the lookup on the Account field, AX freezes for a couple minutes and when it recovers, the lookup is closed/never opened. This happens every time when account type vendor, other account types work just fine.
I debugged this to LedgerJournalEngine.accountNumLookup() --> VendTable.lookupVendor line
formSegmentedEntryControl.performFormLookup(formRun);
The above process takes up the time.
Any ideas before I hire an exorcist?
There is a known KB for this for R3, look for it on Lifecycle services
KB 3086961 Performance issue of VendorLookup on the volume data,
during the GFM Bugbash 6/11 took over 30 minutes
Even though the fix is for R3 it should be easy to backport as the changes are described as
The root cause seemed to be the DirPartyLookupGridView, which had
around 14 joins on views and tables. This view is used in many places
and hence seemed to have grown quite a lot over time.
The changes in the hotfix remove the view and add only the required
datasources - dirpartytable and logisticsaddress to the
VendTableLookup form.
The custtableLookup is not using the view and using custom datasource
joins instead, so no changes there.
Try implementing that change and see what happens.
I'm not sure this will fix your issue as in your execution plan the only operation that seems really expensive is the sort operator which needs to spill to tempdb (you might need more memory to solve that) but the changes in the datasource could have the effect of removing the sort operator from the execution plan as the data may be sorted by an index.
Probably the SQL Server chose the wrong query plan.
First check that you have not disabled any indexes on the involved tables, then do a synchronize on them.
If still a problem, then to run a STATISTICS UPDATE on the involved tables (including the tables in the view).
I am creating a bespoke SCORM course. All the data that i save and restore works fine. When I finish the course and set the 'cmi.completion_status: completed' and 'cmi.success_status: Passed' I close the course and all looks great in the LMS (cloud.scorm.com).
The problem starts after i try to reopen the course again after completing it. For some reason the LMS is resetting all values that was stored in the the database so it looks like the course was never lunched before.
Any ideas why this is happening and how i can prevent it, since when starting the course i have to make sure that we do not lose the progress of the learner.
You need to set "cmi.exit" to "suspend" before terminating, that way it knows that you're wanting to come back to the same data, rather than completing this attempt and having the new attempt replace it next time it starts.
I'm fairly new to xProc and xPath, but I've been asked to solve the following problem:
Step 2 receives data via the secondary port from step 1. Step 2 contains a p:for-each, which saves a document into a folder for each element that passes the for-each.
(Part A)
These documents (let's say I receive 6 documents from for-each) lay in the same directory and get filtered by p:directory-list and are eventually stored in one single document, containing the whole path of every document the for-each created. (Part B)
So far, so good.
The problem is that Part A seems to be too slow. Part B already tries to read the data Step A
stores while the directory is still empty. Meaning, I'm having a performance / synchronization problem.
And now comes the question:
Is it possible to let the pipeline wait and to let it continue as soon as a certain event occurs?
That's what I'm imagining:
Step B waits as long as necessary until the directory, which Step A stores the data in, is no longer empty. I read something about
dbxml:breakpoint, but unfortunately I couldn't find more information than the name and
a short description of what it seems to do:
Set a breakpoint, optionally based upon a condition, that will cause pipeline operation to pause at the breakpoint, possibly requiring user intervention to continue and/or issuing a message.
It would be awesome if you know more about it and could give an example of how it's used. It would also help if you know a workaround or another way to solve this problem.
UPDATE:
After searching google for half an eternity, I found SMIL which's timesheets seem to do the trick. Has anyone experience with throwing XML / xProc and SMIL together?
Back towards the end of 2009 I proposed the concept of 'Orchestrating XProc with SMIL' http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/09/xproc-and-smil-orchestrating-p.html in a blog post on the O'Reilly Network.
However, I'm not sure that this (XProc + Time) is the solution to your problem. It's not entirely clear, to me, from you description what's happening. Are you implying that you're trying to write something to disk and then read it in a subsequent step? You need to keep stuff in the pipeline in order to ensure you can connect outputs to subsequent inputs.
I am currently using powerbuilder 6.5
In my application, i want to make a code where any change in one window should reflet another window.Two windows are using the same table. if we channge in one window it is not reflecting in another window if the other window is opened earlier. what cani do?
It might help to know a little more about what you are trying to accomplish. Are both windows open at the same time on a single user's screen? Or is one window available to one user and the second being viewed by a separate user waiting to see the updates?
By themselves, the datawindows won't retrieve automatically on updates to the underlying table. In fact, if you have configured the datawindows properly, the update rules should provide some concurrency protection and will not let the second dw update the same table after the first updates. DataWindow2 will sense there's been a change and will try to prevent clobbering the DataWindow1's changes. But again, this may not be an issue if in your context the second window is read-only.
You could have the first window finish its update then check for the existence of the second window and have it retrieve. Even better, use a non-visual business object as an intermediate handler (and also keep nasty cross-window communication code out of the GUI). When the first window's update is successful have it tell the business object it's done, and the object can then tell the second window to retrieve. But there would need to be more done if your second window is updateable.
Use the datawindow ShareData method to share the content of the two datawindows (you do mean datawindow when you say table, right?).
BTW, I feel for you, having to use that PB 6.5 dinosaur. OTOH, we've just migrated from PB 10 to shiny new PB 11.5, and it has the worst IDE I have ever used. As a programmer, I'm embarrassed to see such am awful software. Sybase should be ashamed of themselves, releasing such a lousy product.
# eran
No i meant table only.
Two windows are using different datawindow and for these datawindow it is using same table.
So if we change in one window it wont reflect that change in other window if it opened one.
I have a web application at work that is similar to a ticket working system. Some users enter new issues. Other workers choose and resolve issues. All of the data is maintained in MS SQL server 2005.
The users working to resolve issues go to a page where they can view open issues. Because up to twenty people can be looking at this page at the same time, one potential problem I had to address was what happens if someone picks an issue that someone else picked just after their page loaded.
To address this, I did two things. First, the gridview displaying the issues to select uses an AJAX timer to update every second. Once an issue has been selected, it disappears one second later at most. In case they select one within this second, they get a message asking them to choose another.
The problem is that the AJAX part of this is sending too many updates (this is what I am assuming) and it is affecting the performance of the page and database. In addition, the updates are not performing every second. I find the timer to be unreliable when working to trigger stored procedures.
There has to be a better way, but I can't seem to find one. Does anyone have experience with a situation like this or have suggestions to keep multiple users from selecting the same record to maintain? I really do not want to disable the AJAX part entirely because I feel the message alone would make the application frustrating to use.
Thanks,
Put a lock timestamp field on the row in the database. Write a stored proc that returns true or false if the expiration timsetamp is older than a specific time. Set your sessions on your web app to expire in the same time, a minute or two. When a user select a row they hit the stored proc which helps the app to decide if it should let the user to modify it.
Hope that makes sense....
Two things can help mitigate your problem.
First, after-selection notification that the case has been taken is needed regardless of your ajax update time frame. Even checking every second doesn't mean two people cannot click the same case at what they perceive to be the same time. In such cases, one of the users needs to be notified that their selection is invalid even though it appeared valid when selected. This notification doesn't need to be elaborate; keeping a light, helpful tone can improve user perception even in the light of disappointment. And if you identify the user who selected that record already, that will not only help your users coordinate in future but also divert attention from your program to the user who snaked the juicy case. (indeed, management may like giving your users the occasional collision as it will motivate them to select cases faster)
Second, a small tweak to how you display your cases can reduce selection collisions. Adding a random element to display order and/or filtering out every other case on display will help your users select different cases naturally. Human pattern recognition and task selection isn't really random so small changes to presentation can equal big changes to selection behavior. Reductions in collision chance keeps your collision notifications rare (and thus less frustrating to your users). This is even better if your users can be separated into classifications that can help determine useful case ordering/filtering.
Okay, a third thing that will help you over time is if you keep a log of when collisions occur (with helpful meta data about the collision—like who was involved and selection timing). Armed with solid collision data, you can find what works and what doesn't. Over time, you can hone your application to your actual use cases as well as identify potential problems early. Nothing reassures your users more than being on top of a problem (and able to explain your plans to solve it) before they're even aware it exists.
With these mitigating patterns, you'll probably find you can safely reduce your ajax query timeframe without affecting user experience. And with useful logging, you'll have the assurance that any tweaks you put in place are actually working (or not—which is maybe even more useful to know).
I did something similar where once a user opened a ticket (row) it assigned that ticket to that user and set a value on that record, like and FK to that particular user, so if anyone else tried to open that ticket (row) it would let them know it has already been assigned to someone else.
If possible limit the system so that they just get the next open issue off the work queue as opposed having them be able choose from all open issues.
If that isn't possible, I suppose you could check upon the choosing of an issue to see if it is still available. If it's not available, then make it disappear after the user clicks on it. This way you are only requesting when they actually click on something as opposed to constant polling of the data.
Have you tried increasing the time between refreshes. I would expect that once per 30 seconds would be sufficient. 40 requests/minute is a lot less load than 1200/minute. Your users may not even notice the difference.
If they do, how about providing a refresh button on the page so the users can manually refresh the list just prior to selecting an item to avoid the annoying message if they choose.
I'm missing to see the issue, specially after you mentioned you are already flagging tickets as in progress/being maintained and have a timestamp/version of the item.
Isn't the following enough:
User browses the tickets and sees a list of available tickets i.e. this excludes ones that are in the db as in progress. If you want the users to also see tickets in progress, you indicate it clearly in the ticket status and disable the option to take it.
User either flags a ticket as in progress explicitly or implicitly by opening the ticket (depends on the user experience / how its presented to the users).
User explicitly moves the ticket to a different status i.e. completed, invalid, awaiting for feedback, etc.
When the items are retrieved at 1, you include a timestamp/version. When 2 happens, you use a optimistic concurrency approach to make sure that if 2 persons try to update the take the ticket at the same time only the first one will be successful.
What will happen is that for the second person, the update ... where ... timestamp = #timestamp will not find any records to update and you will report back that the ticket was already taken.
If you want, you can build on top of the above to update the UI as tickets are grabbed. This could be by just doing a full refresh of the current page of tickets after x time (maybe alerting/prompting the user), or even by retrieving a list of tickets changed for the page of tickets being showed with ajax. You still have the earlier steps in place, as this modification its just a convenience for the users.