Skip to content

Comments

Issue6226 untested port of IWXQI external business events and power utomate friendly web services#6556

Open
insightworks007 wants to merge 1 commit intomicrosoft:mainfrom
Insight-Works-dmsiworks:Issue6226
Open

Issue6226 untested port of IWXQI external business events and power utomate friendly web services#6556
insightworks007 wants to merge 1 commit intomicrosoft:mainfrom
Insight-Works-dmsiworks:Issue6226

Conversation

@insightworks007
Copy link
Contributor

@insightworks007 insightworks007 commented Feb 9, 2026

Summary

This is an untested port of IW external business events and power automate friendly web services.
Unable to test because it requires publish permission in the MS range on a SaaS system.

Work Item(s)

Fixes #6226

Fixes AB#611285

@insightworks007 insightworks007 requested a review from a team as a code owner February 9, 2026 21:14
@github-actions github-actions bot added AL: Apps (W1) Add-on apps for W1 From Fork Pull request is coming from a fork Linked Issue is linked to a Azure Boards work item labels Feb 9, 2026
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the Version 28.0 milestone Feb 9, 2026
@alexei-dobriansky alexei-dobriansky self-assigned this Feb 19, 2026
/// </summary>
page 20415 "Qlty. Create Inspection API"
{
APIVersion = 'v2.0';
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why v2.0? Isn't this a new API?

APIVersion = 'v2.0';
APIGroup = 'qualityinspection';
APIPublisher = 'insightworks';
Caption = 'qltyCreateInspection', Locked = true;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Caption has no value in API pages. Please remove

{
APIVersion = 'v2.0';
APIGroup = 'qualityinspection';
APIPublisher = 'insightworks';
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this Microsoft?

page 20415 "Qlty. Create Inspection API"
{
APIVersion = 'v2.0';
APIGroup = 'qualityinspection';
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
APIGroup = 'qualityinspection';
APIGroup = 'qualityManagement';

DelayedInsert = true;
DeleteAllowed = false;
Editable = false;
EntityName = 'qltyCreateInspectionOnRecord';
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do not use abbreviations for entityName and entitySetName

/// <param name="tableName">Text. The table ID, or table name, or table caption.</param>
/// <param name="tableNameFilter">The table filter that can identify a specific record.</param>
[ServiceEnabled]
procedure CreateInspectionFromTableIDAndFilter(var ActionContext: WebServiceActionContext; tableName: Text; tableNameFilter: Text)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this procedure will be exposed as a bound action because of the tableName and tableNameFilter parameter. Please double check in latest version

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

With the object range I'm not able to verify this page, however in the original web service API page that this got imported from it appears to show and function in power automate (method name is different, and different naming convention):
image

/// <param name="tableName">The table ID or table name to create a test</param>
/// <param name="ActionContext"></param>
[ServiceEnabled]
procedure CreateInspectionFromRecordID(var ActionContext: WebServiceActionContext; tableName: Text)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What's the need for two bound actions that does essentially the same thing?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just convenience/usability in the original code that we ported this from.

CreateTestFromRecordID/CreateInspectionFromRecordID can use the supplied System ID from the name/value buffer as an input in conjunction with the supplied table name to find the record to create the test with.

CreateTestFromTableIDAndFilter/CreateInspectionFromTableIDAndFilter does not use the system id, and instead uses the table filter to find the record.

This comment is just an explanation of how we approached the problem in the original version, there are potentially different patterns that could be used instead.

systemRecord: Guid;
currentTable: Integer;
NoSystemIDRecordErr: Label 'Business Central cannot find a record for the system id of %1', Locked = true;
OnlyOneRecordForTableAndFilterErr: Label 'Please check your PowerAutomate configuration. 1 record should have been found, but %1 records were found for table %2 and filter %3.', Comment = '%1=the count, %2=the table, %3=the filter';
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This error message is not very user friendly

{
area(Content)
{
repeater(rptTests)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

test?

/// <summary>
/// Power automate friendly web service for quality inspections.
/// </summary>
page 20414 "Qlty. Inspections API"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

same comments on first API page applies to this one

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

AL: Apps (W1) Add-on apps for W1 From Fork Pull request is coming from a fork Linked Issue is linked to a Azure Boards work item

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Vendor] [QM] support of PowerAutomate

3 participants