We are using batch id's for registering cases. Lets say for example a batch
id is 15003. When registering a new batch, a new batch id should be given;
15004. Is it possible to validate this? So you can assure that a new unique
number is used? Than you need to have the information of the previous
registered case.
Or is this only possible when you are already within a case? (and you can
safe the data to the case itself)
Hello Annegreet,
It is possible to make this happen using the User Case feature that you can
read about here
https://confluence.dimagi.com/display/commcarepublic/User+Case. Note that
the running counter would be unique per user only.
Hope this helps,
Kriti
···
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Annegreet Ottow-Boekeloo < annegreetboekeloo@gmail.com> wrote:
We are using batch id's for registering cases. Lets say for example a
batch id is 15003. When registering a new batch, a new batch id should be
given; 15004. Is it possible to validate this? So you can assure that a new
unique number is used? Than you need to have the information of the
previous registered case.
Or is this only possible when you are already within a case? (and you can
safe the data to the case itself)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"commcare-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to commcare-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Thanks a lot! Another reason to upgrade soon
···
Op do 8 okt. 2015 om 17:17 schreef Kriti Mehrotra :
Hello Annegreet,
It is possible to make this happen using the User Case feature that you
can read about here
https://confluence.dimagi.com/display/commcarepublic/User+Case. Note
that the running counter would be unique per user only.
Hope this helps,
Kriti
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Annegreet Ottow-Boekeloo < annegreetboekeloo@gmail.com> wrote:
We are using batch id's for registering cases. Lets say for example a
batch id is 15003. When registering a new batch, a new batch id should be
given; 15004. Is it possible to validate this? So you can assure that a new
unique number is used? Than you need to have the information of the
previous registered case.
Or is this only possible when you are already within a case? (and you can
safe the data to the case itself)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"commcare-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to commcare-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
Google Groups "commcare-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/commcare-users/gnnv1DYxHdE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
commcare-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
I am trying to create unique identifiers from user properties, following the instructions here: https://dimagi.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/commcarepublic/pages/2143946126/Generating+a+Unique+ID+for+beneficiaries. But in my registration form, where I need to create unique case codes, this process does not work and I get this error message: Validation error: Problem with bind for /data/user_prefix contains invalid calculate expression [#user/prefix] Couldn't understand the expression starting with ...
Could you please guide me? Basically I need to assign a code to each registered case to be able to follow up, these cases do not have personal data, and I want to make a simple code that uses prefix and number of the mobile user, and them a count... Also, I've tried with the count as mentioned here: https://dimagi.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/commcarepublic/pages/2143945489/Incrementing+a+counter and also gives this error: Validation error: Problem with bind for /data/user_prefix contains invalid calculate expression [coalesce(#case/count, 0) + 1] Couldn't understand the expre ...