1 of 1 people found this helpful
I asked the same question of support a short time ago and the answer was no. There is an existing Request For Enhancement (RFE) if you contact support you could be added to it as well.
2 of 2 people found this helpful
You could probably police it with a database query identifying any duplicates, something like this:
SELECT JOBNAME, COUNT(JOBNAME)
GROUP BY JOBNAME
HAVING COUNT(JOBNAME) > 1
If no values are returned you're all good.
Thanks for this info....
BUT your solution could only be applied AFTER the fact that job has been allowed to be created.
What I am looking for is to prevent it all-together -- before it is even allowed to be "Check-In". Just like how EM checks for same folder name before committing to DB. Similarly, a way for a check on jobname as well... A built in EM function that verifies for jobname uniqueness.
Yes, but that option doesn't exist and you asked if there was a way to police it.
How is it "Policing" when the job has been allowed to be created !!! That's exactly what we are trying to avoid.
Your solution is applied after the fact job has been allowed to create.
What i am looking for is:
- Similar to when you try to create a new folder, at the time of checking in, it ALERTS you if there is already a folder by the same name already in existence in DB or not.
- We dont want developers to create a job with the same name that already exists in the DB.
I guess, for now there is NO out-of-box solution to STOP from job to be created, if already a job exists with the same name in the system.
Just trying to help Rahim. This is a user community and not every suggestion will be correct or to your satisfaction and you are welcome to take it or leave it.
So yes, there is no solution, and in future I won't even bother to recommend to you the closest workaround that you could implement.
We're using a naming policy that has to be strictly followed by everyone.
This helps us to keep names unique and also to have a schema to group/identify jobs, regardless of the foldernames.
I certainly did not mean to offend you.
All I was trying to convey was that, though your solution could be a viable option & workaround for check & balances, but there truly isn't a way (which I now have realized) to prevent multiple job with same name.