In some strange cases, Salesforce supports objects with no record type at all. These get missed by the salesforce_pull module when getting updated objects if the UX has been configured to limit the record types in any way.

CommentFileSizeAuthor
#2 allow_blank_record_types_in_pull_filter-2695741.patch1.62 KBgcb

Comments

gcb created an issue. See original summary.

gcb’s picture

gcb
he/him
Location Portland, OR
commented
StatusFileSize
new allow_blank_record_types_in_pull_filter-2695741.patch1.62 KB
aaronbauman’s picture

aaronbauman
he/him
commented
Status: Needs review » Needs work

Can we make use of the existing constant SALESFORCE_MAPPING_DEFAULT_RECORD_TYPE?
If not, please define a new constant for this.

gcb’s picture

gcb
he/him
Location Portland, OR
commented
Assigned: Unassigned » gcb

That's a good idea. Assigning to myself to re-roll when I have time.

bburg’s picture

bburg
he/him
Location Washington, DC
commented

The patch in #2 is quite out of date and no longer applies, or has a clear approach to apply manually. It seems that the source for the allows mapped fields now comes from the function salesforce_mapping_get_mapped_objects(), but also, the SalesforceMapping::getMappedRecordTypes() method appears to be checking for this.

Is this patch still relevant in the current dev snapshot?

aaronbauman’s picture

aaronbauman
he/him
commented
Status: Needs work » Closed (won't fix)

7.x is no longer supported

Now that this issue is closed, review the contribution record.

As a contributor, attribute any organization that helped you, or if you volunteered your own time.

Maintainers, credit people who helped resolve this issue.