Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Cursor needs to be updated to accept systemModifiedAt fields that are greater than or equal to "0001-01-01T00:00:00Z" #6

Open
igor-ctrl opened this issue Nov 25, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@igor-ctrl
Copy link

igor-ctrl commented Nov 25, 2024

Title

Business Central Connector: Need support for legacy records with minimum datetime systemModifiedAt values

Description

We're encountering an issue with the Business Central connector related to legacy records in our tenant that were created before the introduction of the systemModifiedAt field in the API pages.

Current Behavior

  • Some records in our Business Central tenant (initialized in 2016/2017) have systemModifiedAt values of 0001-01-01T00:00:00Z
  • These records were created before the systemModifiedAt field was introduced and never had subsequent triggers to update this field
  • The connector's cursor appears to be filtering out these records, preventing them from being synced

Expected Behavior

  • The connector should accept and process records with systemModifiedAt values greater than or equal to 0001-01-01T00:00:00Z
  • This would ensure complete data synchronization, including legacy records

Impact

  • Missing legacy records in our data warehouse
  • Incomplete historical data for business analysis
  • Potential data inconsistency issues
  • Continued ticket requests from Fivetran

Technical Details

  • Tenant initialization date: 2016/2017
  • Affected records: Those created before systemModifiedAt field implementation
  • Current minimum datetime value affected: 0001-01-01T00:00:00Z

Proposed Solution

Modify the connector's cursor logic to:

  1. Accept records with systemModifiedAt values greater than or equal to 0001-01-01T00:00:00Z
  2. Consider these as valid timestamps for the initial sync
  3. Include these records in the regular incremental sync process

Additional Context

This issue specifically affects Business Central tenants that were initialized before the introduction of the systemModifiedAt field in the API pages. While the connector works excellently for newer records, this adjustment would ensure comprehensive data coverage for long-standing Business Central implementations.

Environment

  • Connector: Business Central
  • Tenant Creation Date: 2016/2017
  • API Version: v2.0

Would you please review this request and advise on the feasibility of implementing this cursor adjustment? This would greatly help ensure complete data synchronization for the Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central implementations.


Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let me know if you need any additional information or clarification.

@igor-ctrl igor-ctrl changed the title Cursor needs to be reset to accept systemModifiedAt fields that less than ore equal to "0001-01-01T00:00:00Z" Cursor needs to be reset to accept systemModifiedAt fields that less than are equal to "0001-01-01T00:00:00Z" Nov 25, 2024
@igor-ctrl igor-ctrl changed the title Cursor needs to be reset to accept systemModifiedAt fields that less than are equal to "0001-01-01T00:00:00Z" Cursor needs to be updated to accept systemModifiedAt fields that less than are equal to "0001-01-01T00:00:00Z" Nov 25, 2024
@igor-ctrl igor-ctrl changed the title Cursor needs to be updated to accept systemModifiedAt fields that less than are equal to "0001-01-01T00:00:00Z" Cursor needs to be updated to accept systemModifiedAt fields that are equal to "0001-01-01T00:00:00Z" Nov 25, 2024
@igor-ctrl igor-ctrl changed the title Cursor needs to be updated to accept systemModifiedAt fields that are equal to "0001-01-01T00:00:00Z" Cursor needs to be updated to accept systemModifiedAt fields that are greater than or equal to "0001-01-01T00:00:00Z" Nov 25, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant