Is that possible to write a validation rule that would allow to update only two fields of 800 on a custom object record?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;

up vote
2
down vote

favorite

My colleague asked me today an interesting question I never thought of before.
Is that possible to write a validation rule that would allow to update only two fields of 800 on a custom object?

I know that this question might sound strange, as I would never try to do something like this myself, I would use page layout to restrict users from editing fields or FLS or in the worst case I would write an apex trigger to implement this. But this question is about configuration approach.

Also the reason why he doesn't want to use page layout is that he doesn't want to use record types and due to his requirements he had to make 798 fields of 800 readonly if value of some custom status field on record is On Hold.

I was thinking of using "ISCHANGED" advanced formula function but that would not distinguish if only two permitted fields were changed or more.

validation validation-rule configuration

share|improve this question

asked Aug 14 at 9:28

Patlatus

4,85411848

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

favorite

My colleague asked me today an interesting question I never thought of before.
Is that possible to write a validation rule that would allow to update only two fields of 800 on a custom object?

I know that this question might sound strange, as I would never try to do something like this myself, I would use page layout to restrict users from editing fields or FLS or in the worst case I would write an apex trigger to implement this. But this question is about configuration approach.

Also the reason why he doesn't want to use page layout is that he doesn't want to use record types and due to his requirements he had to make 798 fields of 800 readonly if value of some custom status field on record is On Hold.

I was thinking of using "ISCHANGED" advanced formula function but that would not distinguish if only two permitted fields were changed or more.

validation validation-rule configuration

share|improve this question

asked Aug 14 at 9:28

Patlatus

4,85411848

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

favorite

up vote
2
down vote

favorite

My colleague asked me today an interesting question I never thought of before.
Is that possible to write a validation rule that would allow to update only two fields of 800 on a custom object?

I know that this question might sound strange, as I would never try to do something like this myself, I would use page layout to restrict users from editing fields or FLS or in the worst case I would write an apex trigger to implement this. But this question is about configuration approach.

Also the reason why he doesn't want to use page layout is that he doesn't want to use record types and due to his requirements he had to make 798 fields of 800 readonly if value of some custom status field on record is On Hold.

I was thinking of using "ISCHANGED" advanced formula function but that would not distinguish if only two permitted fields were changed or more.

validation validation-rule configuration

share|improve this question

asked Aug 14 at 9:28

Patlatus

4,85411848

My colleague asked me today an interesting question I never thought of before.
Is that possible to write a validation rule that would allow to update only two fields of 800 on a custom object?

I know that this question might sound strange, as I would never try to do something like this myself, I would use page layout to restrict users from editing fields or FLS or in the worst case I would write an apex trigger to implement this. But this question is about configuration approach.

Also the reason why he doesn't want to use page layout is that he doesn't want to use record types and due to his requirements he had to make 798 fields of 800 readonly if value of some custom status field on record is On Hold.

I was thinking of using "ISCHANGED" advanced formula function but that would not distinguish if only two permitted fields were changed or more.

validation validation-rule configuration

share|improve this question

asked Aug 14 at 9:28

Patlatus

4,85411848

share|improve this question

share|improve this question

asked Aug 14 at 9:28

Patlatus

4,85411848

asked Aug 14 at 9:28

Patlatus

4,85411848

asked Aug 14 at 9:28

Patlatus

4,85411848

4,85411848

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

up vote
5
down vote

No. You can't have enough validation rules that could cover this, nor could you have one (or even a few) rules that would compile within the limits of the system. Something this complicated would be best served by a trigger that could check all 798 fields for changes.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 at 10:25

sfdcfox

225k10170384

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

You can assign the Account to a specific recordType lets say CustomRecX and assign to page layout and make all the fields as readonly except that two fields.

In the validation rule, use this logic to throw the error when user is trying to save without changing any of the field values:

(RecordType.DeveloperName = 'CustomRecX') 
 && (NOT(ISCHANGED(Field1__c)) 
 || NOT(ISCHANGED(Field2__c)))

Otherwise, you need to handle with triggers.

share|improve this answer

edited Aug 14 at 10:48

answered Aug 14 at 10:42

Santanu Boral

28.4k51847

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

I'm not sure if this wouldn't be to long for a validation rule, but I think you could just count the number of changed fields?

3 > ( IF(ISCHANGED(field1__c), 1, 0) + 
 IF(ISCHANGED(field2__c), 1, 0) + 
 IF(ISCHANGED(field3__c), 1, 0) ... etc )

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 at 9:53

Kasper

1,009615

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think it would fail the compiled formula size
  – Patlatus
  Aug 14 at 10:25
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Patlatus Yeah I guess you're right.
  – Kasper
  Aug 14 at 11:11
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "459"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f228798%2fis-that-possible-to-write-a-validation-rule-that-would-allow-to-update-only-two%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

up vote
5
down vote

No. You can't have enough validation rules that could cover this, nor could you have one (or even a few) rules that would compile within the limits of the system. Something this complicated would be best served by a trigger that could check all 798 fields for changes.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 at 10:25

sfdcfox

225k10170384

add a comment | 

up vote
5
down vote

No. You can't have enough validation rules that could cover this, nor could you have one (or even a few) rules that would compile within the limits of the system. Something this complicated would be best served by a trigger that could check all 798 fields for changes.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 at 10:25

sfdcfox

225k10170384

add a comment | 

up vote
5
down vote

up vote
5
down vote

No. You can't have enough validation rules that could cover this, nor could you have one (or even a few) rules that would compile within the limits of the system. Something this complicated would be best served by a trigger that could check all 798 fields for changes.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 at 10:25

sfdcfox

225k10170384

No. You can't have enough validation rules that could cover this, nor could you have one (or even a few) rules that would compile within the limits of the system. Something this complicated would be best served by a trigger that could check all 798 fields for changes.

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 at 10:25

sfdcfox

225k10170384

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 at 10:25

sfdcfox

225k10170384

answered Aug 14 at 10:25

sfdcfox

225k10170384

answered Aug 14 at 10:25

sfdcfox

225k10170384

225k10170384

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

You can assign the Account to a specific recordType lets say CustomRecX and assign to page layout and make all the fields as readonly except that two fields.

In the validation rule, use this logic to throw the error when user is trying to save without changing any of the field values:

(RecordType.DeveloperName = 'CustomRecX') 
 && (NOT(ISCHANGED(Field1__c)) 
 || NOT(ISCHANGED(Field2__c)))

Otherwise, you need to handle with triggers.

share|improve this answer

edited Aug 14 at 10:48

answered Aug 14 at 10:42

Santanu Boral

28.4k51847

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

You can assign the Account to a specific recordType lets say CustomRecX and assign to page layout and make all the fields as readonly except that two fields.

In the validation rule, use this logic to throw the error when user is trying to save without changing any of the field values:

(RecordType.DeveloperName = 'CustomRecX') 
 && (NOT(ISCHANGED(Field1__c)) 
 || NOT(ISCHANGED(Field2__c)))

Otherwise, you need to handle with triggers.

share|improve this answer

edited Aug 14 at 10:48

answered Aug 14 at 10:42

Santanu Boral

28.4k51847

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

up vote
1
down vote

You can assign the Account to a specific recordType lets say CustomRecX and assign to page layout and make all the fields as readonly except that two fields.

In the validation rule, use this logic to throw the error when user is trying to save without changing any of the field values:

(RecordType.DeveloperName = 'CustomRecX') 
 && (NOT(ISCHANGED(Field1__c)) 
 || NOT(ISCHANGED(Field2__c)))

Otherwise, you need to handle with triggers.

share|improve this answer

edited Aug 14 at 10:48

answered Aug 14 at 10:42

Santanu Boral

28.4k51847

You can assign the Account to a specific recordType lets say CustomRecX and assign to page layout and make all the fields as readonly except that two fields.

In the validation rule, use this logic to throw the error when user is trying to save without changing any of the field values:

(RecordType.DeveloperName = 'CustomRecX') 
 && (NOT(ISCHANGED(Field1__c)) 
 || NOT(ISCHANGED(Field2__c)))

Otherwise, you need to handle with triggers.

share|improve this answer

edited Aug 14 at 10:48

answered Aug 14 at 10:42

Santanu Boral

28.4k51847

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited Aug 14 at 10:48

edited Aug 14 at 10:48

edited Aug 14 at 10:48

answered Aug 14 at 10:42

Santanu Boral

28.4k51847

answered Aug 14 at 10:42

Santanu Boral

28.4k51847

answered Aug 14 at 10:42

Santanu Boral

28.4k51847

28.4k51847

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

I'm not sure if this wouldn't be to long for a validation rule, but I think you could just count the number of changed fields?

3 > ( IF(ISCHANGED(field1__c), 1, 0) + 
 IF(ISCHANGED(field2__c), 1, 0) + 
 IF(ISCHANGED(field3__c), 1, 0) ... etc )

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 at 9:53

Kasper

1,009615

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think it would fail the compiled formula size
  – Patlatus
  Aug 14 at 10:25
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Patlatus Yeah I guess you're right.
  – Kasper
  Aug 14 at 11:11
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

I'm not sure if this wouldn't be to long for a validation rule, but I think you could just count the number of changed fields?

3 > ( IF(ISCHANGED(field1__c), 1, 0) + 
 IF(ISCHANGED(field2__c), 1, 0) + 
 IF(ISCHANGED(field3__c), 1, 0) ... etc )

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 at 9:53

Kasper

1,009615

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think it would fail the compiled formula size
  – Patlatus
  Aug 14 at 10:25
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Patlatus Yeah I guess you're right.
  – Kasper
  Aug 14 at 11:11
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

up vote
0
down vote

I'm not sure if this wouldn't be to long for a validation rule, but I think you could just count the number of changed fields?

3 > ( IF(ISCHANGED(field1__c), 1, 0) + 
 IF(ISCHANGED(field2__c), 1, 0) + 
 IF(ISCHANGED(field3__c), 1, 0) ... etc )

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 at 9:53

Kasper

1,009615

I'm not sure if this wouldn't be to long for a validation rule, but I think you could just count the number of changed fields?

3 > ( IF(ISCHANGED(field1__c), 1, 0) + 
 IF(ISCHANGED(field2__c), 1, 0) + 
 IF(ISCHANGED(field3__c), 1, 0) ... etc )

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 at 9:53

Kasper

1,009615

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered Aug 14 at 9:53

Kasper

1,009615

answered Aug 14 at 9:53

Kasper

1,009615

answered Aug 14 at 9:53

Kasper

1,009615

1,009615

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think it would fail the compiled formula size
  – Patlatus
  Aug 14 at 10:25
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Patlatus Yeah I guess you're right.
  – Kasper
  Aug 14 at 11:11
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think it would fail the compiled formula size
  – Patlatus
  Aug 14 at 10:25
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Patlatus Yeah I guess you're right.
  – Kasper
  Aug 14 at 11:11
  

  
  
  
  

1

1

I think it would fail the compiled formula size
– Patlatus
Aug 14 at 10:25

I think it would fail the compiled formula size
– Patlatus
Aug 14 at 10:25

@Patlatus Yeah I guess you're right.
– Kasper
Aug 14 at 11:11

@Patlatus Yeah I guess you're right.
– Kasper
Aug 14 at 11:11

add a comment | 

 

draft saved

draft discarded

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f228798%2fis-that-possible-to-write-a-validation-rule-that-would-allow-to-update-only-two%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Name Email

Name

Email

Name Email

Name

Email