Planning

Get Involved. Join the Conversation.

Topic

    Arun Raj
    Issue with Valid Intersections in PBCS
    Topic posted October 9, 2017 by Arun RajGold Trophy: 10,000+ Points, tagged Financial Planning, PBCS, Planning, Security 
    200 Views, 3 Comments
    Title:
    Issue with Valid Intersections in PBCS
    Summary:
    Valid Intersections in PBCS
    Content:

    Hi Everyone,

    Working on valid intersections and had questions on the same.

    Anchor Dimension - Entity

    Additional Dimensions --> Appropriation, Fund

    I have created two rules

    Enity Appropriation Fund
    ILvl0Descendants(A24000) ILvl0Descendants(DPT24) ILvl0Descendants(Total GL Funds)
    ILvl0Descendants(A25000) ILvl0Descendants(DPT25) ILvl0Descendants(Total GL Funds)

    Unselected Members are valid : this option is not selected.

    What we are looking to achieve:

    1. When we open the form and click on Entity, we should be seeing A24000 and A25000 and all its members.

    2. If we select an entity belonging to A24000, the appropriations list should only show appropriations belonging to DPT24

    3. If we select an entity belonging to A25000, the appropriations list should only show appropriations belonging to DPT25

     

    What we are seeing:

    1. We only see Entity A25000 and its children, Level 0 members etc. We don't see A24000 or its children or Level 0 members

    2. We only see AppropriatIon DPT25 and its children, Level 0 members etc. We don't see DPT24 or its children or Level 0 members

    What are we doing wrong?

    Any help is greatly appreciated.

     

    Thanks in advance,

    Arun

    Comment

     

    • Nathan Goodearl

      Hi Arun,

      Have you tried switching the data validations around?  Also trying creating a separate data validation rule. What you are trying should work in theory though.

      I recently logged a bug regarding data validations. It was different to the situation you are describing but showed there are still a few issues. On the whole data validations work well.

      Thanks,

      Nathan