User Profile
JohnTM
Brass Contributor
Joined Oct 25, 2017
User Widgets
Recent Discussions
Re: Azure SQL Access is Denied reading Azure Storage file
My browser didn't render the discussion page properly so I didn't get to enter any detail...! This has been working for a number of years but stopped over the weekend of Friday 31st October, to Monday 3rd November. Eventually discovered the the Shared Access Signature had expired... I've reset the SAS and all is good now!90Views0likes0CommentsRe: I'm unable to login to https://dynamicspartners.transform.microsoft.com/
Hi Chris_Apps4Rent, unfortunately, this is not a solution. This is a frustrating dead-end as there is no Dynamics Partner option on https://partner.microsoft.com/support and, if you raise through any other area, they will advise it's not their issue. Also, if 1 is the issue, then thre should be a message to that effect, or the content should not be listed - doing nothing is not a solution...! My latest is that I've been told I'm an Indirect reseller (I didn't know and I'm not sure for which product they're referencing as I couldn't log the issue as Dynamics!), so I need to raise the issue through my Indirect Provider (who I don't know and will not be able to advise as to which Microsoft portal/forum/area they need to raise the issue). I'm pretty sure this is a fairly straightforward issue to resolve, it's just I have no way of finding an entry point into Microsoft to get to someone who knows the solution.123Views1like0CommentsRe: Am trying to create group with dynamic user membership using attribute "Employee Type"
I understand how Microsoft might have a temporary gap in supported columns, but it's unbelievable that Employee Type is still not available. On top of that there is different group types (Security, Distribution, Microsoft 365) that have different setup criteria (dynamic/not), do different things, are incompatible with each other and with Microsoft applications/products BUT CAN HAVE THE SAME NAME! Why do Microsoft insist on making this stuff so difficult? I thought we were moving to a 'code-less' future?259Views0likes1CommentRe: I'm unable to login to https://dynamicspartners.transform.microsoft.com/
I've also posted on the community site, but again, a 'confusion' of seemingly unrelated forums so I picked Engage with Community. Community Post: https://community.dynamics.com/forums/thread/details/?threadid=7c07fc77-353d-f011-b4cc-6045bda94eab86Views0likes0CommentsRe: I'm unable to login to https://dynamicspartners.transform.microsoft.com/
I've logged a Support ticket on Partner Centre, but I could only guess at this issue relating to the Membership workspace as https://dynamicspartners.transform.microsoft.com/ or 'related microsoft sites' was not an option.37Views0likes0CommentsRe: I'm unable to login to https://dynamicspartners.transform.microsoft.com/
Hi ossikulmala, did you get this sorted? 2 out of 3 people in my organisation, that I know of, are experiencing the same problem with https://dynamicspartners.transform.microsoft.com/ The issue is not local, as their Microsoft Partner configuration is identical (as far as I can tell!), and I have tried from multiple devices, browser sessions, etc. As you discovered, there's no way to log a support ticket from Microsoft Partner Portal...!150Views1like6CommentsRe: Unused Join affects performance on View select
...and have now found that this is not a general solution... I have now found another example, without uniqueidentifier data types, where specifying a join has had an enormous impact on a query's performance for no apparent reason - and there's no "PlanAffectingConvert" issues that I can see. I presume this qualifies as a bug in the Query engine. The issue is found in an Azure SQL database - I'll do some testing to see if this is a general SQL thing or just Azure SQL.218Views0likes1CommentRe: Unused Join affects performance on View select
Hi rodgerkong, , Thanks for your reply. Using an Indexed view isn't an option - there are a lot of restrictions on creating indexed views and the CustomerTeam view falls foul of one of those - the underlying table is in a different schema. But it did lead me to a solution - if not an explanation... The underlying table has a number of uniqueidentifier data type columns and the view uses CAST to convert these to varchar. The execution plan referenced a "PlanAffectingConvert" on the dbo.CustomerTeam.[Customer Team DynID] column. I changed the data type on the column on the underlying table, recreated the view without the CAST, and the problem is gone... So, changing the underlying data type (luckily an option in my scenario), works around the problem. But it still doesn't explain why the PlanAffectingConvert on one join 'branch' of the query had such a considerable impact on an entirely unrelated 'branch'.304Views0likes2CommentsUnused Join affects performance on View select
The query below runs in less than 1 second when dbo.CustomerTeam, which contains 6 rows, is a table but almost 4 minutes when it is created as a view. ProjectManagement contains 737615 rows. The query plan shows 221663 rows read on ProjectManagement to Project/ProjectTask join when CustomerTeam is a table but 4195075 when it is a view - despite CustomerTeam not being on the join path! Rows read on the Project Management to Customer Team join is 149790 in both cases - which is the number of rows in team 'Sales Team'. Why is the performance on the ProjectManagement to Project/ProjectTask join being negatively influenced by CustomerTeam, which is on a different join, being a view? SELECT Customer FROM ProjectManagement pm LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.CustomerTeam ct ON ct.[Customer Team DynID] = pm.[Customer Team DynID] LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.Project p INNER JOIN dbo.ProjectTask pt ON p.[Project DynID] = pt.[Project DynID] ON pt.[Project DynID] = pm.[Project DynID] AND pt.[Task DynID] = pm.[Task DynID] LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.Customer c ON p.[Customer DynID] = c.[Customer DynID] WHERE ct.[Customer Team] IN ('Sales Team') GROUP BY Customer OPTION(RECOMPILE)480Views0likes4CommentsMS Word: Opening a template from Organisational Asset Library doesn't pick up newest version
In MS Word, A user created a new document from the Organisational Asset Library. Subsequently, the Template was updated in the Organisational Asset Library. When the user creates a new document, the original version is not returned.603Views0likes0CommentsRe: Horrible sharing URLs in Sharepoint
Hi Andrew Hodges , thanks for the response. The rejected idea was to provide a new format short URL. I'm looking to revert back to the way it was before - a user-friendly URL displaying the Item Title. As to the permissions, Existing Access is only available through the individual Active Sites panel - that's fine for the SharePoint Root site (and I've changed that setting now, thanks) but I'd have to go each of the myriad sites created by Office365 groups, Teams, PWA, etc. and then there's OneDrive! Head - wrecking! ... and I'd still have the ugly URL format...! I'm just amazed that Microsoft haven't seen this as a real barrier to user adoption. Every (as in EVERY!) user I've dealt with has mentioned it to me. We have a large variety of solutions (workarounds!) - from getting the ugly URLs (meaning the emails/IMs are, generally, unreadable), to people using the Share via email and sending a sharing request every time, to people not providing a link and just referring, in text, to the document location, to people sending attachments. Ultimately, people are not happy with this! Part of the frustration is that I had created videos and instruction Wikis showing people how easy it was to get a neat user-friendly link; one of the catalysts for adoption was me demonstrating how easy it was to get a neat link! - and then Microsoft changed it without asking...! Aaaarrgh! Regards, John M6.3KViews0likes9CommentsHorrible sharing URLs in Sharepoint
What is the story with Sharing URLs - they are horrible! In classic SharePoint you could click/drag over a document and you had a user-friendly URL that linked to the document and could be pasted directly into documents, emails etc. Permissions were set once based on the organisation's policy. The link was completely separate to access. Now it creates a horrible unprofessional looking GUID filled thing! In addition, you now have to specify the type of sharing/access you are providing - in most cases existing access is fine! - which can then result in completely unnecessary permissions entries that now have to be managed/audited. Not only was it fine the way it was, it was better! Any chance of sorting this out?6.9KViews0likes11Comments
Recent Blog Articles
No content to show