moved from https://tufts.box.com/s/fzubsi6d5r8hww8rmap0d1n0beciq6sa

...

SUMMARY/CURRENT STATUS:

• prompt field values do not respect form rankings. This has been submitted to Technolutions, and maybe some day we will get a response.

• Work-around in making sure all of the data is in free text fields has been accomplished for 2023 cycle

  • Manual Query->Import of newly completed recs

  • All previous recs from this cycle that used the old form have been imported

  • All NUTR defers have had their letters ported over

  • Working on report to find anyone in GSBS who is using last year’s letters.

• And Technolutions gets back in touch 3 months later to tell us the answer was something we already tried and it didn’t work before

• So, revert text fields/manual process back to the way it was displaying before.

• Completed for 2024 cycle. See the troubleshooting and conversconversion notes below.

RESEARCH

https://knowledge.technolutions.com/hc/en-us/articles/360032612272-Custom-PDF

This is what we get without a Merge query—two forms with different data, like there should be, but not custom fields.

...

Things that DO NOT WORK

Brackets in the custom pdf

...

Things that DO work

...

+

...

=

Gets me A DIFFERENT ANSWER FOR EACH FORM!

...

For the top of the .pdf, I used the delivered Merge fields, as well as their “new” version without the NUM:

...

And this gets me

...

 Takeaways:

• System > Merge queries must be application scoped.

• The old NUM nomenclature, even if you choose a system field from the drop down, does not work any more

• System fields, whether or not they are in the “available” list, do not need to be added to the Merge query.

• The cache has to be broken in order to refresh the data. Have an easy thing to look at to determine if the .pdf you are reviewing has actually changed, and have a group of records you can cycle through.

• Add Prefix, first, last and title, organization just as their own fields (rather than trying to get a concatenate to work) got me to:

...