Good afternoon! In continuation of the task - https://crm-onebox.com/ru/support/suppliers-and-prices/8459-dorabotka-deystviya-quotintegratsiya-produktov-xml-eksportquot-v2/
The work is done, it works. But apparently you touched the functionality "Transmit values of balances / availability in the warehouse for each warehouse separately"
Since now only one warehouse transfers the value of availability. Below is a screenshot. I ask you to check.
[file]5981[/file]
[file]5982[/file]
Good afternoon! In continuation of the task - https://crm-onebox.com/ru/support/suppliers-and-prices/8459-dorabotka-deystviya-... The work is done, it works. But apparently you touched the functionality "Transmit values of balances / availability in the warehouse for each warehouse separately" Since now only one warehouse transfers the value of availability. Below is a screenshot. I ask you to check.
Good afternoon! Yes confirm. Thanks a lot! Tell me, please, in the file there are CDATA tags, where the value contains the sign "&" ampersand, we tried to put "&" instead of "&", it did not help, how can I fix this moment?
Good afternoon! Yes confirm. Thanks a lot! Tell me, please, in the file there are CDATA tags, where the value contains the sign "&" ampersand, we tried to put "&" instead of "&", it did not help, how can I fix this moment?
[file]6023[/file]
The <>& characters are not allowed within XML content - and the format requires the data to be wrapped in a CDATA data section. There are 2 solutions: 1. remove ampersand from content 2. force the receiving party to correctly parse XML, taking into account data sections
The <>& characters are not allowed within XML content - and the format requires the data to be wrapped in a CDATA data section.
There are 2 solutions:
1. remove ampersand from content
2. force the receiving party to correctly parse XML, taking into account data sections
Good afternoon! Yes, we solved the problem through 1 option. Thank you! Another moment has come. On the receiving end, the XML file does not validate against the XSD schema. It is necessary that the elements and attributes inside are in the correct order. Is it possible to control the order in which elements and attributes are unloaded in an action ? I am attaching a screenshot, where on the left as we have now, and on the right as it should be
Good afternoon!
Yes, we solved the problem through 1 option. Thank you!
Another moment has come. On the receiving end, the XML file does not validate against the XSD schema. It is necessary that the elements and attributes inside are in the correct order. Is it possible to control the order in which elements and attributes are unloaded in an action ?
I am attaching a screenshot, where on the left as we have now, and on the right as it should be
[file]6049[/file]
dmitryi wrote: It is necessary that the elements and attributes inside are in the correct order.
interesting host, that this is an important point for validation :)
dmitryi wrote: Is it possible to control the order in which elements and attributes are unloaded in an action ?
In manual mode, no. Unless I can suggest changing the order, for example, so that there is "presence / additional tag / additional field" (or as needed)
[quote]
dmitryi wrote:
It is necessary that the elements and attributes inside are in the correct order.
[/quote]
interesting host, that this is an important point for validation :)
[quote]
dmitryi wrote:
Is it possible to control the order in which elements and attributes are unloaded in an action ?
[/quote]
In manual mode, no.
Unless I can suggest changing the order, for example, so that there is "presence / additional tag / additional field" (or as needed)
interesting host, that this is an important point for validation :)
I agree :-) It's like checking the order of terms. Well, they thought that order is important.
In manual mode, no. Unless I can suggest changing the order, for example, so that there is "presence / additional tag / additional field" (or as needed)
You wrote about attributes, right? But what about the elements "model", "brand", "price" after all, they also need to be placed in their places?
[quote]
interesting host, that this is an important point for validation :)
[/quote]
I agree :-) It's like checking the order of terms. Well, they thought that order is important.
[quote]
In manual mode, no.
Unless I can suggest changing the order, for example, so that there is "presence / additional tag / additional field" (or as needed)
[/quote]
You wrote about attributes, right? But what about the elements "model", "brand", "price" after all, they also need to be placed in their places?
dmitryi wrote: I agree :-) It's like checking the order of terms. Well, they thought that order is important.
very strange, because it is not universally obtained ...
dmitryi wrote: You wrote about attributes, right? But what about the elements "model", "brand", "price" after all, they also need to be placed in their places?
well, in this case, you need to implement custom sorting, which is quite labor-intensive .. to influence the receiving party there is no possibility of a rigid structure?
[quote]
dmitryi wrote:
I agree :-) It's like checking the order of terms. Well, they thought that order is important.
[/quote]
very strange, because it is not universally obtained ...
[quote]
dmitryi wrote:
You wrote about attributes, right? But what about the elements "model", "brand", "price" after all, they also need to be placed in their places?
[/quote]
well, in this case, you need to implement custom sorting, which is quite labor-intensive ..
to influence the receiving party there is no possibility of a rigid structure?
dmitryi wrote: well, in this case, you need to implement custom sorting, which is quite labor-intensive .. to influence the receiving party there is no possibility of a rigid structure?
No, it won't work, unfortunately. Is it possible only for us to make just such a structure, that is, not customizable, and fix it? This is the main functionality of our boxing.
[quote]
dmitryi wrote:
well, in this case, you need to implement custom sorting, which is quite labor-intensive ..
to influence the receiving party there is no possibility of a rigid structure?
[/quote]
No, it won't work, unfortunately. Is it possible only for us to make just such a structure, that is, not customizable, and fix it? This is the main functionality of our boxing.
dmitryi wrote: Is it possible only for us to make just such a structure, that is, not customizable, and fix it?
No - we do not make individual improvements for customers in the context of the product. I think you can change several tags in the structure - this is unlikely to affect other services (I have not seen such requests).
[quote]
dmitryi wrote:
Is it possible only for us to make just such a structure, that is, not customizable, and fix it?
[/quote]
No - we do not make individual improvements for customers in the context of the product.
I think you can change several tags in the structure - this is unlikely to affect other services (I have not seen such requests).
dmitryi wrote: Is it possible only for us to make just such a structure, that is, not customizable, and fix it?
No - we do not make individual improvements for customers in the context of the product. I think you can change several tags in the structure - this is unlikely to affect other services (I have not seen such requests).
Okay, what will it cost us?
[quote]
Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich wrote:
[quote]
dmitryi wrote:
Is it possible only for us to make just such a structure, that is, not customizable, and fix it?
[/quote]
No - we do not make individual improvements for customers in the context of the product.
I think you can change several tags in the structure - this is unlikely to affect other services (I have not seen such requests).
[/quote]
Okay, what will it cost us?
Yes, the structure is now even, But now there are a lot of duplicates in the file and the availability in the warehouse is not taken into account, everywhere available="no" :)
[quote]
Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich wrote:
Nothing. As part of the previous revisions, I changed several fields in some places.
https://azing.crm-onebox.com/media/export/product/pricelist.xml
[/quote]
Yes, the structure is now even, But now there are a lot of duplicates in the file and the availability in the warehouse is not taken into account, everywhere available="no" :)
Good afternoon! The preOrder attribute is filled in from the add. product fields, for some reason, when there is a value of 0, it is put in the file, and other values are put down without problems. Add-on type fields - a string, although I tried both an integer and a text, everything is the same. We need 0 to be substituted in preOrder.
Good afternoon! The preOrder attribute is filled in from the add. product fields, for some reason, when there is a value of 0, it is put in the file, and other values are put down without problems. Add-on type fields - a string, although I tried both an integer and a text, everything is the same. We need 0 to be substituted in preOrder.
[file]6088[/file]
[file]6089[/file]
Good afternoon! We need to redo in action the logic of putting down the sign of the presence of a product relative to the add. product fields. Now it works relative to the warehouse, which is not quite suitable for us. In the screenshot, I showed which parameters should be taken from where. Please consider improvement.
Good afternoon! We need to redo in action the logic of putting down the sign of the presence of a product relative to the add. product fields. Now it works relative to the warehouse, which is not quite suitable for us. In the screenshot, I showed which parameters should be taken from where. Please consider improvement.
[file]6105[/file]
dmitryi wrote: hello day! We need to redo in action the logic of putting down the sign of the presence of a product relative to the add. product fields. Now it works relative to the warehouse, which is not quite suitable for us. In the screenshot, I showed which parameters should be taken from where. Please consider improvement.
make a separate topic This topic has been improved
[quote]
dmitryi wrote:
hello day! We need to redo in action the logic of putting down the sign of the presence of a product relative to the add. product fields. Now it works relative to the warehouse, which is not quite suitable for us. In the screenshot, I showed which parameters should be taken from where. Please consider improvement.
[/quote]
make a separate topic
This topic has been improved
Please join the conversation. If you have something to say - please write a comment. You will need a mobile phone and an SMS code for identification to enter.
Log in and comment
Donate
You don't have enough funds in your account Top up