Bugs
Priority Selection is disabled for Relevant Sliding Date Window on Join transform
When the 'Relevant' Sliding Date Window option is chosen the option for Priority Selection is no longer offered. I need to use Relevant to select the best set of Aurion employee placements (i.e. current, else future, else past) but then within the selected set I need to be able to pick an acting position (ActualPlacementType=NONSUBS) in preference to any substantive positions (ActualPlacementType=SUBS). This is crucial for correctly determining the correct current position (and therefore org structure and manager) for a person.
Answer
Hi Adrian,
This isn't a bug, but an intentional design decision from when the transforms were re-worked back in Broker 4. I'm not sure on the reason for the design decision, but currently the entity selection for the 'relevant' and 'priority' portions of the join transformation share the same step, which means they're unable to be run together.
This is something we've reworked in the upcoming UNIFYBroker 6 version, to allow a priority selection no matter the window being executed.
If necessary, we can have a discussion about bringing this capability back to 5.3, but the discussion would need to consider the remaining lifetime on the 5.3 product and the reasonable amount of dev and test effort required to bring this feature to the version. We're also currently in the middle of putting this feature through its paces, so there may be some unknown edge cases which a rushed port may miss.
Customer support service by UserEcho
Hi Adrian,
This isn't a bug, but an intentional design decision from when the transforms were re-worked back in Broker 4. I'm not sure on the reason for the design decision, but currently the entity selection for the 'relevant' and 'priority' portions of the join transformation share the same step, which means they're unable to be run together.
This is something we've reworked in the upcoming UNIFYBroker 6 version, to allow a priority selection no matter the window being executed.
If necessary, we can have a discussion about bringing this capability back to 5.3, but the discussion would need to consider the remaining lifetime on the 5.3 product and the reasonable amount of dev and test effort required to bring this feature to the version. We're also currently in the middle of putting this feature through its paces, so there may be some unknown edge cases which a rushed port may miss.