Hi all,
We're deploying an application to a new environment for the first time, but upon inspection of the package in the target environment it's listing some record types as missing precedents.
We've checked and the
I've checked the forums and this seems to be a known issue. My first idea was to try and deploy the record type individually but it has too many missing precedents. Any other suggestions on how to get around this?
Discussion posts and replies are publicly visible
Have you deployed all the DB scripts initially?
I would perform a deployment in the following order
1. Data Base Scripts
2. Groups
3. All objects
Can you retry in the above mentioned order.
when you try to deploy only records initially, it would definitely show this error as it would have interfaces as summary views, expressions for any labels or so. Process models which are used in actions and interfaces used in these processes.
So deploying in the above order would be a better option AFAIK.
If it’s the interfaces that you are unable to deploy due to missing record fields, I would check if any records are missing or any relationships that were not established properly and redeploy in the higher environment. Or Just select all the missing precedents and deploy.
Hi johng0005 could you try as Konduru Chaitanya mentioned, And whenever you are deploying an object/package, initially check the dependents and precedents of the object before creating a package for it , And make a list of objects that needs to be deployed this would help you, Because there would a chance that sometimes we would be changing the things quickly and moving forward as per business requirements. Sometimes you might have to come back one version back and deploy the changes.
That is very good effort of you
Hey Konduru, thanks for the reply. I have already followed the steps you listed above, so far we have deployed the DB scripts, DB objects, and groups. I'm now trying to deploy the rest of the objects. Do you have any other advice?
johng0005 said:Do you have any other advice?
Did you try what I recommended here? As in, exactly, and maybe for like a single Record Type at first?