Recent Discussions
Calculation definitions are not executing in the expected sequence.
Hi Community, I have the following calculations in my workflow profile, but the processes Process_plp and Copy_plp_to_pln run at the same time and not in order. What do I need to do to make them run sequentially? My OneStream version is 8.5.1.
How to treat blank values for Source field and wanted to assign it to 'None' Target member
Hi Team, My validation step failed because the source mapping is missing for blank records. I attempted to add a mapping with (blank) for the source value and None for the target value, but it didn’t work. How should blank source values be handled in the mapping? Can you please help me with this if anyone face similar issue ? Thank you
Workflow channels with scenario copies
Hi All, In our multi year planning process, most entities need to upload four sets of fixed costs (all loaded by the same team, but sent to that entity's finance team by different functional teams), in addition to all the driver-based costs we're calculating (mostly based on form inputs). For the four sets of fixed costs, we have four import profiles under the same parent workflow. The entities import their files and then run a DM sequence from a dashboard to run the validate/load for a range of years they can select. When they run this sequence, all import profiles (under the same parent) that have been imported are validated and loaded. We had not set up workflow channels on the different loads, and everything was working as expected. The different import profiles will use some of the same accounts, but different sets of cost centers. We did not see any collision of data when the same accounts were loaded, and if a balance that had previously been loaded in one import was removed from the import template and reimported, the data in that account would be cleared from the cube (even if that account was only used by one of the four imports) after the next validate/load. Now that we have started to copy cube data from one completed scenario (CY) to another blank scenario (CY_v2), so that some changes can be made to CY_v2, we were running into issues with our fixed cost loads in CY_v2 (balances not clearing, other values being overwritten). This makes sense, and we had not considered loading the fixed costs to copied scenarios. We would like to be able to only load one of the four imports (if say the G&A load is the only one with changes) in the CY_v2 scenario. We were hoping that workflow channels on the imports would solve the issue in the copied-to scenarios, but after completing that set up (changing accounts to nodatalock, setting up different data source members for each of the four imports, creating the channels, and applying the channels to the data source members), we are still seeing balances "stuck" in CY_v2 when previously loaded balances to a unique account are removed from the latest upload for one of the imports. We had also gone back and reloaded the "source" scenario with the channels applied, before copying the data and trying to load only a single template to CY_v2. Is there a way to use workflow channels so that all data loaded through that channel is cleared and replaced when a new import is loaded to a data source member where the channel is applied, or will accounts no longer in the latest import be left un-cleared? The documentation on the level 2 and level 3 data units seems to indicate that those accounts will not be cleared, but that does not match the behavior we see in the original loads of multiple sibling import profiles (described and bolded in my second paragraph). It also doesn't seem to match how a typical, iterative planning process would work. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, James
Error when processing of uploaded Excel file
Hi all, Could you please advise how to find error in Excel file which we try to load in OneStream on Import step of workflow. When I click Process button after uploading of file, I see the below message: Invalid URI: The hostname could not be parsed. Unable to execute Business Rule 'ADU_SolutionHelper'. A malformed URI was found in the document. Please provide a OpenSettings.RelationshipErrorRewriter to handle these errors while opening a package.Workflow Leading Practices - Input Data to Parent Entities
Please share your Workflow leading practices to input data to Parent Entities. Thank you. In addition, please help us with three initial questions below: 0. Workflow: Parent Input – Forms/O#AdjInput - Is this Workflow the leading option to input data to Parent Entities? -- We prefer not to use Forms/O#Forms by creating alternative Base E#/A# Members as they are massive. 0. If Forms/O#AdjInput is the leading option: 1. Account Dim: Member Properties | Vary By Scenario Type And Time | Adjustment Type -- How to massively set A#'s 'Adjustment Type' to 'Data Entry' from the default 'Journals'? -- Can we still use Workflow 'Journals' as they are tied to O#AdjInput as the default? Loading Form Data 2. Form Input Template: Format – CSV v Excel -- CSV v Excel: which template format is better and why? -- CSV Template: please share a copy here per OS Support. -- I couldn't find a Form CSV template in Community, Solution Exchange or Design Guide. Thank you, SMEs.
"Cannot execute step because the prior workflow step is not completed"
We have Workflow A, and Workflow B. We get an error when the loadCube step in workflow B, when Workflow A is in Validation step. The error we get is "Cannot execute step because the prior workflow step is not completed. . (WP#WorkflowA.Import:S#Actual:T#2022M1)" The name the actual workflow has been changed to protect the innocent. Our question is: what is causing this issue and how do we fix it? It's not clear in the documentation what exactly triggers this error message. The parameters passed back imply that one cannot load to the same scenario and time if another workflow to that scenario and time is still open. WorkflowA and WorkflowB are loading to the same scenario and time, but to different accounts.Workflow Profile Hierarchies: Security Model | Application Security Roles v Workflow Security
Please share your practical advice to secure Workflow Profile Hierarchies per the two requirements below. Thank you. A. Workflow Profile Hierarchies: Admin v Builder/Business 0. 'Cube Root Workflow Profiles' | Admin and Business | Top Level Cube_suffix 1. 'Default/Child Workflow Profile Types' | Admin/Business 'Cube Root Workflow Profiles' 2. Admin 'Parent/Child Workflow Profile Types' | Admin/Business 'Cube Root Workflow Profiles' 3. Business 'Parent/Child Workflow Profile Types' | Business 'Cube Root Workflow Profiles B. Two Workflow Requirements: Admin v Builder/Business 1. Builder not allowed to see/create/edit: - Admin 'Cube Root Workflow Profiles' - 'Default/Child' and Admin 'Parent/Child Workflow Profile Types' | Admin 'Cube Root Workflow Profiles' - 'Default/Child Workflow Profile Types' | Business 'Cube Root Workflow Profiles' - Admin 'Parent/Child Workflow Profile Types' | Business 'Cube Root Workflow Profiles' 2. Admin/Builder allowed to see/create/edit: - Business 'Cube Root Workflow Profiles' -- Business 'Parent Workflow Profile Types': Review, Base Input, Parent Input -- Business 'Child Workflow Profile Types': Import, Forms, Journals C. Security Model: Application Security Roles + Workflow Security | Admin v Builder/Business 0. Security Groups: 'Admin Roles and Builder Roles' and Child Groups = 'Admin Roles' + 'Builder Roles' 1. Application Security Roles | Manage Workflow Profiles = 'Admin Roles and Builder Roles' 2. Workflow Security = 'Admin Roles' = Admin/Business 'Default Workflow Profile Types' 3.1. Workflow Security = 'Admin Roles' = Admin 'Cube Root Workflow Profiles' 3.2. Workflow Security = 'Admin Roles' = Admin 'Parent Workflow Profile Types' 4.1. Workflow Security = 'Builder Roles' = Business 'Cube Root Workflow Profiles' 4.2 Workflow Security = 'Builder Roles' = Business 'Parent Workflow Profile Types' D. Security Model Results: Admin v Builder/Business - 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = Workflow Requirement 1 = Fail - 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = Workflow Requirement 2 = Succeed Thank you, SMEs.
