Domain Separation on Email Notifications not working

[#1]

I'm testing Domain Separation to see to what extent admin configuration can be separated.

I have created my own table called "Tenant" that I am using as the Domain field. I changes the sys_dictionary (for sys_domain) in the User table to point to the u_tenant table.

When I log in (impersonate) a User whose role is admin and whose Domain is set to "Tenant A" .... I'm expecting that any new Email Notifications he creates will automatically have the Domain set to "Tenant A".

... but this is not happening. The new email notifications have a Domain of blank (whilst all other notifications have a domain of "global"

can anyone understand why this is happening? (the same test works fine when the Domain points to Group or Company)

[marcguy]

you could mentioned the default javascript:gs.getUser().getDomainID() as the default value as I mentioned in my other post. what I've noticed with some tables is that instead of creating a new record with the specific domain and keeping the global record, it just updates the global record thus leaving no global record, I think e-mail notifications are one of those tables so be to do an insert if your modifying an existing notification. Marc

[rob_phillips]

The functionality for Email Notifications should work as you describe (I just tested it to confirm). You do not need a default value or business rule to set system policy such as Email Notifications to the correct domain.

Perhaps you have changed the incorrect sys_dictionary value for Domain. You need to Personalize Dictionary on the sys_user.sys_domain field and make it a reference to u_tenant. Then ensure the user has a valid domain. Lastly, you may want to make sure that your new domain table has a "display value" set - if not, perhaps a domain is set correctly, but not being shown on the screen.

Etienne, shoot me an email with the instance and I can help you take a look - then will post the findings back here for the community.

Thanks,
Rob

[#4]

thanks Marc, thanks Rob,

After spending a few hours on the new 'tenant' table I though I would try using an existing table instead. I tried on the Company table... and found the behaviour to be more consistent and correct as described in the WIKI.

So I'm sticking with the Company table ... sorry if any newcomers land here looking to resolve the same issues.