How can I know if it's the last execution of an After Trigger?
Imagine one object with 20 fields, field1
to field20
. Some of these fields I have Process Builder in place, some of them I have Worflow Updates, and some of them are 'bare field' (i.e. PB and WF does not touch it).
My problem is that, depending on the operation that the record performs, these tools (PB and WF) are fired or not, and it implies in how many times the After Trigger
is fired.
If the operation performed is 'clean' (i.e. it will not fire WF or PB), the
After Trigger
fires only once.If the operation causes a WF to fire, the
After Trigger
fires twice.If the operation causes a WF and PB to fire, the
After Trigger
fires three times.
I need to execute certain things only on the last time that the After Trigger fires.
Is it possible to isolate it without getting rid of the current PB and WF implementation?
trigger workflow process-builder after-trigger
add a comment |
Imagine one object with 20 fields, field1
to field20
. Some of these fields I have Process Builder in place, some of them I have Worflow Updates, and some of them are 'bare field' (i.e. PB and WF does not touch it).
My problem is that, depending on the operation that the record performs, these tools (PB and WF) are fired or not, and it implies in how many times the After Trigger
is fired.
If the operation performed is 'clean' (i.e. it will not fire WF or PB), the
After Trigger
fires only once.If the operation causes a WF to fire, the
After Trigger
fires twice.If the operation causes a WF and PB to fire, the
After Trigger
fires three times.
I need to execute certain things only on the last time that the After Trigger fires.
Is it possible to isolate it without getting rid of the current PB and WF implementation?
trigger workflow process-builder after-trigger
Possible duplicate: Execute some code after all trigger batches complete?
– Adrian Larson♦
Jan 11 at 13:59
Not really. This question is about the last execution of the afterTrigger of the same context of execution (i.e. CODE_UNIT). The one that you mentioned is regarding the end of a batch of contexts.
– Leandro Ferreira Fernandes
Jan 16 at 17:03
add a comment |
Imagine one object with 20 fields, field1
to field20
. Some of these fields I have Process Builder in place, some of them I have Worflow Updates, and some of them are 'bare field' (i.e. PB and WF does not touch it).
My problem is that, depending on the operation that the record performs, these tools (PB and WF) are fired or not, and it implies in how many times the After Trigger
is fired.
If the operation performed is 'clean' (i.e. it will not fire WF or PB), the
After Trigger
fires only once.If the operation causes a WF to fire, the
After Trigger
fires twice.If the operation causes a WF and PB to fire, the
After Trigger
fires three times.
I need to execute certain things only on the last time that the After Trigger fires.
Is it possible to isolate it without getting rid of the current PB and WF implementation?
trigger workflow process-builder after-trigger
Imagine one object with 20 fields, field1
to field20
. Some of these fields I have Process Builder in place, some of them I have Worflow Updates, and some of them are 'bare field' (i.e. PB and WF does not touch it).
My problem is that, depending on the operation that the record performs, these tools (PB and WF) are fired or not, and it implies in how many times the After Trigger
is fired.
If the operation performed is 'clean' (i.e. it will not fire WF or PB), the
After Trigger
fires only once.If the operation causes a WF to fire, the
After Trigger
fires twice.If the operation causes a WF and PB to fire, the
After Trigger
fires three times.
I need to execute certain things only on the last time that the After Trigger fires.
Is it possible to isolate it without getting rid of the current PB and WF implementation?
trigger workflow process-builder after-trigger
trigger workflow process-builder after-trigger
asked Jan 11 at 9:12
Leandro Ferreira FernandesLeandro Ferreira Fernandes
947
947
Possible duplicate: Execute some code after all trigger batches complete?
– Adrian Larson♦
Jan 11 at 13:59
Not really. This question is about the last execution of the afterTrigger of the same context of execution (i.e. CODE_UNIT). The one that you mentioned is regarding the end of a batch of contexts.
– Leandro Ferreira Fernandes
Jan 16 at 17:03
add a comment |
Possible duplicate: Execute some code after all trigger batches complete?
– Adrian Larson♦
Jan 11 at 13:59
Not really. This question is about the last execution of the afterTrigger of the same context of execution (i.e. CODE_UNIT). The one that you mentioned is regarding the end of a batch of contexts.
– Leandro Ferreira Fernandes
Jan 16 at 17:03
Possible duplicate: Execute some code after all trigger batches complete?
– Adrian Larson♦
Jan 11 at 13:59
Possible duplicate: Execute some code after all trigger batches complete?
– Adrian Larson♦
Jan 11 at 13:59
Not really. This question is about the last execution of the afterTrigger of the same context of execution (i.e. CODE_UNIT). The one that you mentioned is regarding the end of a batch of contexts.
– Leandro Ferreira Fernandes
Jan 16 at 17:03
Not really. This question is about the last execution of the afterTrigger of the same context of execution (i.e. CODE_UNIT). The one that you mentioned is regarding the end of a batch of contexts.
– Leandro Ferreira Fernandes
Jan 16 at 17:03
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Conceivably what you could do is set up a Queueable
class. On the first pass through the trigger, instantiate and enqueue it, and then save that in a static variable so you know it's already been created. It will run once after all executions are done, in a separate transaction.
The trouble is, once you have enqueued it, you can no longer alter any data you've passed into that instance. But if you need to alter such data, what you could do is either a) store the extra data it needs to pick up somewhere in the database, indexed to the job ID retrieved when it was enqueued, or b) cancel the job (delete the AsyncApexJob
) and enqueue it again with the new data added to it.
Downside of b) is that each time you enqueue it counts against the limit of how many jobs can be enqueued in one transaction, even if you later dequeue it.
add a comment |
AFAIK there is no way to do this without adding explicit logic. And that explicit logic is pretty ugly e.g. make the WF and PB set database data or static variables that signal they have run and then have the trigger check those. Which couples the pieces together horribly.
If possible, write the trigger so it is idempotent i.e. nothing bad happens even if it does run multiple times, so the problem goes away.
even though I set some static variables that it was already executed, how could I determine if that is the lastAfter Trigger
or not?
– Leandro Ferreira Fernandes
Jan 11 at 17:55
1
@LeandroFerreiraFernandes You can't unless you also have variables that confirm the preceding WF and PB operations have also run.
– Keith C
Jan 11 at 18:31
add a comment |
It sounds like you are looking for an exit
event. If doesn't exist yet, but you can vote for the idea, the description of which is pasted below:
Since triggers only handle 200 records at a time, it would be convenient if we could schedule some code that runs in the same transaction as the current transaction, but after all other triggers, recursion, etc has executed. The registration function could be called repeatedly, but would only execute once at the end of the transaction. Here's some code that demonstrates this interface:
public class MyAfterEverythingElseHandler implements System.AtExitHandler {
public void atExit() {
// Perform some cleanup. For example, perform one last DML, send emails regarding the transaction, etc.
}
}
The class only triggers if called at least once through System.atExit, such as:
System.atExit(MyAfterEveryElseHandler.class);
This is similar to the @future annotation, but doesn't spawn a new process, has access to the full static environment of the current transaction, and remains subject to the governor limits of the current transaction. Multiple handlers could be registered via this mechanism, but the calling order would be undefined.
Typical uses might be to aggregate together a @future call on many thousands of records at once, debug logging, aggregate email sends across triggers, etc. Ideally, this interface should restrict DML operations, perhaps calling a "plain" commit for any records modified during the handler (e.g. no triggers, workflow rules, etc), or disabled completely, but could still call @future methods, System.executeBatch, System.scheduleBatch, and System.schedule.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "459"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f246315%2fhow-can-i-know-if-its-the-last-execution-of-an-after-trigger%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Conceivably what you could do is set up a Queueable
class. On the first pass through the trigger, instantiate and enqueue it, and then save that in a static variable so you know it's already been created. It will run once after all executions are done, in a separate transaction.
The trouble is, once you have enqueued it, you can no longer alter any data you've passed into that instance. But if you need to alter such data, what you could do is either a) store the extra data it needs to pick up somewhere in the database, indexed to the job ID retrieved when it was enqueued, or b) cancel the job (delete the AsyncApexJob
) and enqueue it again with the new data added to it.
Downside of b) is that each time you enqueue it counts against the limit of how many jobs can be enqueued in one transaction, even if you later dequeue it.
add a comment |
Conceivably what you could do is set up a Queueable
class. On the first pass through the trigger, instantiate and enqueue it, and then save that in a static variable so you know it's already been created. It will run once after all executions are done, in a separate transaction.
The trouble is, once you have enqueued it, you can no longer alter any data you've passed into that instance. But if you need to alter such data, what you could do is either a) store the extra data it needs to pick up somewhere in the database, indexed to the job ID retrieved when it was enqueued, or b) cancel the job (delete the AsyncApexJob
) and enqueue it again with the new data added to it.
Downside of b) is that each time you enqueue it counts against the limit of how many jobs can be enqueued in one transaction, even if you later dequeue it.
add a comment |
Conceivably what you could do is set up a Queueable
class. On the first pass through the trigger, instantiate and enqueue it, and then save that in a static variable so you know it's already been created. It will run once after all executions are done, in a separate transaction.
The trouble is, once you have enqueued it, you can no longer alter any data you've passed into that instance. But if you need to alter such data, what you could do is either a) store the extra data it needs to pick up somewhere in the database, indexed to the job ID retrieved when it was enqueued, or b) cancel the job (delete the AsyncApexJob
) and enqueue it again with the new data added to it.
Downside of b) is that each time you enqueue it counts against the limit of how many jobs can be enqueued in one transaction, even if you later dequeue it.
Conceivably what you could do is set up a Queueable
class. On the first pass through the trigger, instantiate and enqueue it, and then save that in a static variable so you know it's already been created. It will run once after all executions are done, in a separate transaction.
The trouble is, once you have enqueued it, you can no longer alter any data you've passed into that instance. But if you need to alter such data, what you could do is either a) store the extra data it needs to pick up somewhere in the database, indexed to the job ID retrieved when it was enqueued, or b) cancel the job (delete the AsyncApexJob
) and enqueue it again with the new data added to it.
Downside of b) is that each time you enqueue it counts against the limit of how many jobs can be enqueued in one transaction, even if you later dequeue it.
answered Jan 11 at 13:04
Charles TCharles T
6,3561922
6,3561922
add a comment |
add a comment |
AFAIK there is no way to do this without adding explicit logic. And that explicit logic is pretty ugly e.g. make the WF and PB set database data or static variables that signal they have run and then have the trigger check those. Which couples the pieces together horribly.
If possible, write the trigger so it is idempotent i.e. nothing bad happens even if it does run multiple times, so the problem goes away.
even though I set some static variables that it was already executed, how could I determine if that is the lastAfter Trigger
or not?
– Leandro Ferreira Fernandes
Jan 11 at 17:55
1
@LeandroFerreiraFernandes You can't unless you also have variables that confirm the preceding WF and PB operations have also run.
– Keith C
Jan 11 at 18:31
add a comment |
AFAIK there is no way to do this without adding explicit logic. And that explicit logic is pretty ugly e.g. make the WF and PB set database data or static variables that signal they have run and then have the trigger check those. Which couples the pieces together horribly.
If possible, write the trigger so it is idempotent i.e. nothing bad happens even if it does run multiple times, so the problem goes away.
even though I set some static variables that it was already executed, how could I determine if that is the lastAfter Trigger
or not?
– Leandro Ferreira Fernandes
Jan 11 at 17:55
1
@LeandroFerreiraFernandes You can't unless you also have variables that confirm the preceding WF and PB operations have also run.
– Keith C
Jan 11 at 18:31
add a comment |
AFAIK there is no way to do this without adding explicit logic. And that explicit logic is pretty ugly e.g. make the WF and PB set database data or static variables that signal they have run and then have the trigger check those. Which couples the pieces together horribly.
If possible, write the trigger so it is idempotent i.e. nothing bad happens even if it does run multiple times, so the problem goes away.
AFAIK there is no way to do this without adding explicit logic. And that explicit logic is pretty ugly e.g. make the WF and PB set database data or static variables that signal they have run and then have the trigger check those. Which couples the pieces together horribly.
If possible, write the trigger so it is idempotent i.e. nothing bad happens even if it does run multiple times, so the problem goes away.
edited Jan 11 at 12:17
answered Jan 11 at 10:37
Keith CKeith C
95k1090206
95k1090206
even though I set some static variables that it was already executed, how could I determine if that is the lastAfter Trigger
or not?
– Leandro Ferreira Fernandes
Jan 11 at 17:55
1
@LeandroFerreiraFernandes You can't unless you also have variables that confirm the preceding WF and PB operations have also run.
– Keith C
Jan 11 at 18:31
add a comment |
even though I set some static variables that it was already executed, how could I determine if that is the lastAfter Trigger
or not?
– Leandro Ferreira Fernandes
Jan 11 at 17:55
1
@LeandroFerreiraFernandes You can't unless you also have variables that confirm the preceding WF and PB operations have also run.
– Keith C
Jan 11 at 18:31
even though I set some static variables that it was already executed, how could I determine if that is the last
After Trigger
or not?– Leandro Ferreira Fernandes
Jan 11 at 17:55
even though I set some static variables that it was already executed, how could I determine if that is the last
After Trigger
or not?– Leandro Ferreira Fernandes
Jan 11 at 17:55
1
1
@LeandroFerreiraFernandes You can't unless you also have variables that confirm the preceding WF and PB operations have also run.
– Keith C
Jan 11 at 18:31
@LeandroFerreiraFernandes You can't unless you also have variables that confirm the preceding WF and PB operations have also run.
– Keith C
Jan 11 at 18:31
add a comment |
It sounds like you are looking for an exit
event. If doesn't exist yet, but you can vote for the idea, the description of which is pasted below:
Since triggers only handle 200 records at a time, it would be convenient if we could schedule some code that runs in the same transaction as the current transaction, but after all other triggers, recursion, etc has executed. The registration function could be called repeatedly, but would only execute once at the end of the transaction. Here's some code that demonstrates this interface:
public class MyAfterEverythingElseHandler implements System.AtExitHandler {
public void atExit() {
// Perform some cleanup. For example, perform one last DML, send emails regarding the transaction, etc.
}
}
The class only triggers if called at least once through System.atExit, such as:
System.atExit(MyAfterEveryElseHandler.class);
This is similar to the @future annotation, but doesn't spawn a new process, has access to the full static environment of the current transaction, and remains subject to the governor limits of the current transaction. Multiple handlers could be registered via this mechanism, but the calling order would be undefined.
Typical uses might be to aggregate together a @future call on many thousands of records at once, debug logging, aggregate email sends across triggers, etc. Ideally, this interface should restrict DML operations, perhaps calling a "plain" commit for any records modified during the handler (e.g. no triggers, workflow rules, etc), or disabled completely, but could still call @future methods, System.executeBatch, System.scheduleBatch, and System.schedule.
add a comment |
It sounds like you are looking for an exit
event. If doesn't exist yet, but you can vote for the idea, the description of which is pasted below:
Since triggers only handle 200 records at a time, it would be convenient if we could schedule some code that runs in the same transaction as the current transaction, but after all other triggers, recursion, etc has executed. The registration function could be called repeatedly, but would only execute once at the end of the transaction. Here's some code that demonstrates this interface:
public class MyAfterEverythingElseHandler implements System.AtExitHandler {
public void atExit() {
// Perform some cleanup. For example, perform one last DML, send emails regarding the transaction, etc.
}
}
The class only triggers if called at least once through System.atExit, such as:
System.atExit(MyAfterEveryElseHandler.class);
This is similar to the @future annotation, but doesn't spawn a new process, has access to the full static environment of the current transaction, and remains subject to the governor limits of the current transaction. Multiple handlers could be registered via this mechanism, but the calling order would be undefined.
Typical uses might be to aggregate together a @future call on many thousands of records at once, debug logging, aggregate email sends across triggers, etc. Ideally, this interface should restrict DML operations, perhaps calling a "plain" commit for any records modified during the handler (e.g. no triggers, workflow rules, etc), or disabled completely, but could still call @future methods, System.executeBatch, System.scheduleBatch, and System.schedule.
add a comment |
It sounds like you are looking for an exit
event. If doesn't exist yet, but you can vote for the idea, the description of which is pasted below:
Since triggers only handle 200 records at a time, it would be convenient if we could schedule some code that runs in the same transaction as the current transaction, but after all other triggers, recursion, etc has executed. The registration function could be called repeatedly, but would only execute once at the end of the transaction. Here's some code that demonstrates this interface:
public class MyAfterEverythingElseHandler implements System.AtExitHandler {
public void atExit() {
// Perform some cleanup. For example, perform one last DML, send emails regarding the transaction, etc.
}
}
The class only triggers if called at least once through System.atExit, such as:
System.atExit(MyAfterEveryElseHandler.class);
This is similar to the @future annotation, but doesn't spawn a new process, has access to the full static environment of the current transaction, and remains subject to the governor limits of the current transaction. Multiple handlers could be registered via this mechanism, but the calling order would be undefined.
Typical uses might be to aggregate together a @future call on many thousands of records at once, debug logging, aggregate email sends across triggers, etc. Ideally, this interface should restrict DML operations, perhaps calling a "plain" commit for any records modified during the handler (e.g. no triggers, workflow rules, etc), or disabled completely, but could still call @future methods, System.executeBatch, System.scheduleBatch, and System.schedule.
It sounds like you are looking for an exit
event. If doesn't exist yet, but you can vote for the idea, the description of which is pasted below:
Since triggers only handle 200 records at a time, it would be convenient if we could schedule some code that runs in the same transaction as the current transaction, but after all other triggers, recursion, etc has executed. The registration function could be called repeatedly, but would only execute once at the end of the transaction. Here's some code that demonstrates this interface:
public class MyAfterEverythingElseHandler implements System.AtExitHandler {
public void atExit() {
// Perform some cleanup. For example, perform one last DML, send emails regarding the transaction, etc.
}
}
The class only triggers if called at least once through System.atExit, such as:
System.atExit(MyAfterEveryElseHandler.class);
This is similar to the @future annotation, but doesn't spawn a new process, has access to the full static environment of the current transaction, and remains subject to the governor limits of the current transaction. Multiple handlers could be registered via this mechanism, but the calling order would be undefined.
Typical uses might be to aggregate together a @future call on many thousands of records at once, debug logging, aggregate email sends across triggers, etc. Ideally, this interface should restrict DML operations, perhaps calling a "plain" commit for any records modified during the handler (e.g. no triggers, workflow rules, etc), or disabled completely, but could still call @future methods, System.executeBatch, System.scheduleBatch, and System.schedule.
answered Jan 11 at 13:57
Adrian Larson♦Adrian Larson
107k19113241
107k19113241
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Salesforce Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f246315%2fhow-can-i-know-if-its-the-last-execution-of-an-after-trigger%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Possible duplicate: Execute some code after all trigger batches complete?
– Adrian Larson♦
Jan 11 at 13:59
Not really. This question is about the last execution of the afterTrigger of the same context of execution (i.e. CODE_UNIT). The one that you mentioned is regarding the end of a batch of contexts.
– Leandro Ferreira Fernandes
Jan 16 at 17:03