| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name
 | Date | Lines | 
|---|
| 1308.1 | GE is new for V3.0 | SCOTTC::MARSHALL | Pearl-white, but slightly shop-soiled | Tue Aug 25 1992 16:59 | 10 | 
|  | Are you sure the customer is experiencing the problem on a V3.0 system?  Are
they running /NOCUSTOM?
Global Edit was totaly overhauled for V3.0, and old problems such as this
should have gone away.
I suppose it is possible they customised the V2.4 scripts, and that these are
getting picked up instead of the V3.0 ones?
Scott
 | 
| 1308.2 | MNODES must be set to Y | KERNEL::SMITHERSJ | Living on the culinary edge.... | Wed Aug 26 1992 17:09 | 17 | 
|  |     Hi Scott
    
    Thanks for your reply - no they do not have customised scripts.
    Another customer reported the exact same problem today - I can now
    reproduce it.  The problem seems to be when the MNODES flag is set
    to Y so that it does a network update.
    
    I believe the department symbol is loaded up but doesn't get flushed
    out so each user after that who has there MNODE flag set to Y will
    receive the same department value as the first user.
    
    Could someone confirm this please and a possible fix as it is causing
    these 2 customers much grief.
    
    Thanks
    
    
 | 
| 1308.3 | Try this fix | XLII::FDONOHUE |  | Thu Aug 27 1992 21:05 | 11 | 
|  |     
    This sure does appear to be a problem in V3.0.  I tested a fix
    which appears to resolve this issue.  In the SM_MODIFY_NETWORK.SCP
    substitute all the occurances of the string "#DEPART" with
    "#DEPT".  This will keep the two procedures from conflicting as
    they both (GE ad network update) both use a local symbol named
    #DEPART and this is causing the problem.
    
    Hope this helps,
    
    Faith Donohue
 | 
| 1308.4 | Org | GIDDAY::BURT | Plot? What plot? Where? | Mon Oct 18 1993 07:28 | 13 | 
|  | Hello and greetings,
We have had a customer report the same problem as .0, but with an additional 
problem. Customer reports that doing a global edit of users Via ADM Index Edit 
to change View Named Data from Y to N, causes all profiles to pick up the 
department name and Organisation Unit of the first account.
Is there a fixer for the Org unit? and has this problem actually been SPR'd?
Thanks & regards,
Chele
 | 
| 1308.5 | not there? | IOSG::TYLDESLEY | The best team won... (Wales ;-) | Mon Oct 18 1993 14:14 | 11 | 
|  |     Chele. Me again.
    I just tried to test this, and there seems to be something wrong in the
    customer description of problem - 
    >> Customer reports that doing a global edit of users Via ADM Index Edit
    >> to change View Named Data from Y to N,
    On V3.0 (and I think earlier) there is no Global Edit (GE) of the VIEW
    priv. Neither via ADM MUA I {build index} GE and ADM MUA I {build index} 
    XE, is the admin able to edit the ALL-IN-1 privs. Sorry if I have 
    misunderstood problem.
    DaveT 
      
 | 
| 1308.6 |  | GIDDAY::BURT | Plot? What plot? Where? | Tue Oct 19 1993 00:37 | 11 | 
|  | Hi DaveT,
No, you didn't misunderstand. The customer was telling porkies, and I was 
having a major attack of the vagues. 
He wasn't using ADM, he was using SM. 
The Global Edit he was doing was via SM MUA I E which _does_ give the ability 
to change VIEW.
Thanksnregards
Chele
 | 
| 1308.8 | have they got long noses? | IOSG::TYLDESLEY |  | Thu Oct 21 1993 09:23 | 25 | 
|  |     Hi Chele.
    I cannot reproduce this problem here. 
    First, I fixed the #DEPT symbol flushing problem a long time ago.
    So it's not that.
    
    Next, I set up three accounts with Organisation and Department details
    for the first one, different from the other two, and with 'Y' in the 
    VIEW priv field for all of them. I then did two tests:
    
    a) SM MUA I {build index of 3 a/cs} GE {change VIEW to 'N'} {RETURN}
    
    {reset a/cs to VIEW='Y'}
    
    b) SM MUA I {build index of 3 a/cs} XE {go through each a/c in turn 
     editing VIEW priv to 'N'}
    
    In neither case a) or b) were the Organisation or the Department
    details of the first account adopted by the second and third accounts.
    Could you please check the tests that I have done, and see if you can
    reproduce the problem? Failing that, please check the customer for 
    submission of porkie pies.
    Cheers
    DaveT
    
      
 |