make mandadory false to standard form control

(4) Share

Report

Posted on by SC-25021032-0

Hi, I have a standard parameters form, and one parameter control is mandatory at the control property level. Refer to the below. I need to customize the parameters and run the process without the 'editRuleid' control value.

There is a mandatory check that throws an error. I tried to change mandatory to 'false' in the code level, but the form controls do not support this at the code level, and this is not a table field.

Let me know if you have an idea to fix this.

Categories:

Dynamics 365 Finance

Microsoft Dynamics AX

I have the same question (0)

All responses (11)

Answers (1)

Suggested answer

Mohamed Amine Mahmoudi 26,390 Super User 2025 Season 2 on at

Like (0)

Report
Hi @SC-25021032-0,

You need to create form class extension :

[ExtensionOf(formStr(LedgerAllocationRequest))] final class LedgerAllocationRequest_Frm_Extension { public void init() { next init(); this.design().controlName(formControlStr(LedgerAllocationRequest, editRuleID)).mandatory(false); } }

Best regards,

Mohamed Amine MAHMOUDI

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
SC-25021032-0 54 on at

Like (0)

Report

@Mohamed Amine Mahmoudi , Thank you for your suggestion . I have tried that already but i got this error,

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Sohaib Cheema 49,438 User Group Leader on at

Like (0)

Report

You are trying to dig a hole (or tunnel) that seems to have no end. The standard Dynamics classes and logic will not allow you to proceed without an allocation rule ID.

The LedgerAllocationProcessRequest class will return a warning— "No record found for the source" — if no rule ID is provided.

I suggest going back to the person who requested this work and asking for the business reason behind it. What exactly are they trying to achieve with such a customization? Remember, coding is not the answer to every problem.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Suggested answer

Mohamed Amine Mahmoudi 26,390 Super User 2025 Season 2 on at

Like (0)

Report
Hi @SC-25021032-0,

I've obviously forgotten something.

try this :

[ExtensionOf(formStr(LedgerAllocationRequest))] final class LedgerAllocationRequest_Frm_Extension { public void init() { next init(); FormStringControl formRuleId = this.design().controlName(formControlStr(LedgerAllocationRequest, editRuleID)) as FormStringControl; formRuleId.mandatory(false); } }

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Suggested answer

Martin Dráb 237,878 Most Valuable Professional on at

Like (0)

Report
Let's not overcomplicate it:

public void init() { next init(); editRuleID.mandatory(false); }

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Suggested answer

SC-25021032-0 54 on at

Like (0)

Report

@Sohaib Cheema, We are creating group and assign to rule master . Then based on group parameter it should process all the rules which are assigned to that group . So its concept of multiple rule processing .

I am just trying to bypass mandatory error for that rule id field .

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
SC-25021032-0 54 on at

Like (0)

Report

@Mohamed Amine Mahmoudi @Martin DrábI have tried both options but nothing helping :(

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Suggested answer

Mohamed Amine Mahmoudi 26,390 Super User 2025 Season 2 on at

Like (0)

Report

Hi @SC-25021032-0,

this message appears when you call the closeOk() method. i.e. there's a check to see if the field is filled in or not.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Verified answer

Mohamed Amine Mahmoudi 26,390 Super User 2025 Season 2 on at

Like (1)

Report
Hi @SC-25021032-0,

I suggest you override the “validateAllocationRule” method too.

[ExtensionOf(formStr(LedgerAllocationRequest))] final class LedgerAllocationRequest_Frm_Extension { public void init() { next init(); FormStringControl formRuleId = this.design().controlName(formControlStr(LedgerAllocationRequest, editRuleID)) as FormStringControl; formRuleId.mandatory(false); } protected boolean validateAllocationRule() { boolean ret = next validateAllocationRule(); ret = true; return ret; } }

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Sohaib Cheema 49,438 User Group Leader on at

Like (1)

Report
@SC-25021032-0

You can address your requirements by rethinking and redesigning the solution. If I understand correctly, you want to run the allocation process multiple times — once for each rule in a group of rules.

Here are some important points to consider:

The standard process uses runOperation(), which displays a progress dialog during execution.
When running the process for multiple rules, you likely want to avoid this popup, especially if the runs are unattended or automated.

Making the ruleId non-mandatory will require significant changes.
The standard process checks in many places for the valid ruleId. Without Rule Id, this business process cannot execute.

Therefore, somewhat better (if not the best) approach is to call the process separately for each ruleId in your group, like this:

LedgerAllocationRequest req = LedgerAllocationRequest::construct(); // Initialize parameters (as if the user filled the dialog) req.initParameters( 'HR', // ruleId //use your own, it is from USMF Data today(), // asOfDate today(), // glPostDate LedgerAllocationZeroSourceMode::Process, // zeroSource LedgerAllocationProcessMode::ProposalOnly, // processOptions 22565420926, // reasonRefRecId//get it from ReasonTable today() // releaseDate ); // Optionally set FinTagRecId //req.parmFinTagRecId(5637150000); // I am not using Financial Tags, you can if you need to, get the correct value // Run the operation directly, bypassing the UI req.run();//req.runOperation(); will show Progress dialog // Calls run() -> allocate() info("Ledger Allocation executed.");

You can further improve the solution by:

Adding logging with a unique trace ID for each run, storing logs in a custom table if the process is run non-interactively.

Deciding on error handling: if one rule fails, should the remaining rules continue to run or should the entire batch stop?

Whilst it’s possible to enhance the process using the SysOperation framework and few other ways, the standard allocation process is based on a bit older code patterns. To ensure compatibility with future Microsoft updates, I recommend minimizing changes along the existing baseline code.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No