[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NS Logic for Enabled Users

Subject: Re: NS Logic for Enabled Users
From: "Vince Sefcik"
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:19:10 -0800
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.notificationsvcs
I just ran into this same issue.  After converting a version 2.0 application 
to SQL Server 2005, I imported a list of subscribers and subscriptions 
(using the 2005 API).  I set Enabled to False for all Subscribers except one 
(my account), yet three others received notifications.

The instance table NSSubscribers column has a datetime setting of 1/3/2006 
6:19 PM with Enabled = False for all Subscribers except me, yet the 
application table NS...Notifications has entires for those who received 
notifications and column SentTime has a datetime of 1/4/2006 11:01 AM.  This 
is a scheduled notification.

"Andy Wilbourn" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]
>I have not had enough time to retest, we just changed our Match query to 
>join to the subscribers table and put the where enabled in our join.
> Looking at the view NS gives you it will not work. I am wondering if I was 
> just imagining that it worked before, but you seem to give me a sanity 
> check by your thinking it should work.
> "Joe Webb" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
> news:[email protected]
>> I'll see if I can repro - but I'm going to be out of town and largely
>> out of commission for the next 2 weeks or so. If you discover
>> something, would you post your findings?
>> Thanks!
>> -- 
>> Joe Webb
>> SQL Server MVP
>> ~~~
>> Get up to speed quickly with SQLNS
>> I support PASS, the Professional Association for SQL Server.
>> (
>> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 06:49:25 -0500, "Andy Wilbourn"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>I looked at the view and it is only looking at my subscriptions table 
>>>Enabled = 1. I will try to see if I can find what we did with prior 
>>>to get it to work, or may just submit as a bug if warranted.
>>>Thanks for the help Joe.
>>>"Andy Wilbourn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:OJVtu$Y%[email protected]
>>>> Yes I am. I will test it one more time in our QA environment, but our 
>>>> DEV
>>>> it is not working. We went through and did an update to the subscriber
>>>> table to set all disabled, we also tried using the NS API to do the 
>>>> same,
>>>> but our subscriptions were still coming back. I guess I can look at the
>>>> view in our application DB to see what the code is for ACTIVE
>>>> subscriptions.
>>>> I am not sure if Shyam is monitoring this group anymore, he does not 
>>>> have
>>>> a primary focus of NS. Hopefully that does not get me in trouble, since 
>>>> I
>>>> don't know if that is common knowledge. We went to Redmond and fully
>>>> stress tested our solution for the SQL 2005, but did not test this 
>>>> aspect.
>>>> It came up when we were wanting to stress another part of our solution 
>>>> in
>>>> house, but did not want to generate alerts to all our test subscribers. 
>>>> To
>>>> our surprise we did generate millions of alerts.
>>>> "Joe Webb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> Hi Andy -
>>>>> Your understanding of the Subscriber.Enabled property is correct. If
>>>>> the property is set to true, the subscriber's subscriptions are
>>>>> candidates for the matching rules and can generate notifications. If
>>>>> the property is set to false, the subscriptions associated with the
>>>>> disabled subscriber will not produce notifications.
>>>>> You are seeing something contrary to this in RTM?
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Joe Webb
>>>>> SQL Server MVP
>>>>> ~~~
>>>>> Get up to speed quickly with SQLNS
>>>>> I support PASS, the Professional Association for SQL Server.
>>>>> (
>>>>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:04:54 -0500, "Andy Wilbourn"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>I thought I had tested and validated that if a Subscriber is disabled,
>>>>>>none of their subscriptions would be matched without having to disable
>>>>>>I am using SQL 2005 NS. I believe we tested this on June CTP and it 
>>>>>>working, but now with RTM it is not.
>>>>>>Can someone tell what is supposed to happen?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>