When attempting an update on the Event object the API returns errors:
Error code = FIELD_INTEGRITY_EXCEPTION.
Error message = reassignDisallowed: Owner

I'm simply trying to update the OwnerId field on an Event object using the Java API.

I also get an error when I try to make this update via the Excel Connector, so it seems that there is a fundamental issue going on here. Furthermore, I did not get this error from the same code in the same circumstances before the new SFDC release that just launched.

Can anyone tell me why owner reassignment would be disallowed for an Event? The same owner id can be reassigned as owner of a contact record, so I know that there is nothing fundamental on the user record (like being inactive) preventing reassignment.

Thanks.

When I submit a SOQL query, it appears that no records older than one year are returned. Is this indeed the designed behavior? Is there a way to retrieve records older than one year via a SOQL query?

Example:
Select from Event where OwnerId = ''

The results include all the Event records owned by the owner id specified, except that events older than one year are not in the result set.

Can anyone tell what the absolute limits are in this regard and what if any options I have to retrieve records older than one year? I couldn't find any mention of this limitation in the message boards or the API documentation.

Thanks!

I'm trying to determine if there is any way to execute the online Account ownership edit logic without coding a duplicate of the logic in our account integration program (we use Java).

Here's the situation: We have an integration program that inserts and updates accounts via Java and the Sforce API. This is required to synchronize accounts in SFDC with our accounts system of record. When our program updates an account owner, only the account owner gets changed. However, there are numerous related lists that do not get updated with the new owner of course. If you use the web interface to change an account owner, SFDC automatically changes owners on the related list.

In particular, This is what the web interface states will happen when I try to change ownership of an example account:

"When you transfer ownership of an account, the new owner will also gain ownership of the following records related to the transferred account:
⬢ all notes and open activities for this account owned by User X
⬢ all contacts within the account owned by User X, including all related notes and open activities owned by User X
⬢ all opportunities (including closed opportunities) within the account owned by User X, including all related notes and open activities owned by User X"

THE BIG QUESTION: Is there some way through the API that I can issue an ownership change and trigger this logic that already exists in SFDC? Or is my only option to code all of that logic. It gets hairier (and more costly from a performance perspective) than it first appears. For example, you can't just get all of the related objects to the account that fit the ownership and status criteria and change their owner. You have to recurse through those related objects (contacts for example) and change all of the appropriate notes and activies related to those contacts... etc. That is going to be a potentially overwhelming number of Sforce API calls. And many of the queries for the possible related objects on contacts for example will return no results. But we have to make them on every contact because we don't know if there are related objects or not without querying.

If the only option is to code this logic myself, can we get the logic being executed in this behavior from SFDC to ensure that our logic matches the behavior that exists through the web interface?

Thanks,
Eli

Message Edited by SeattleEli on 10-06-2005 10:15 AM

Is there a limit to the number of records that the getUpdated method can return?

If this limit is 2000, say, and a change occurs, such as changing a picklist value of a field, which affects more than this number is a very short time span, how should this be handled?

There doesn't appear to be a similar method to queryMore, so looping to retrieve all changes or setting a smaller batch size is not an option here.

My thanks for any advice.

Brian