0

I have SearchKit searches/tables on cases that that use a link on the ID column. Some of them - I presume the ones that I built last - don't have URL parameter cid in it and thus lead to errors when editing the case from the summary view. Is the parameter missing on purpose and why are there different versions of the table display in the same release?

SearchKit table link configuration with cid parameter:

enter image description here

SearchKit table link configuration without cid parameter:

enter image description here

This question is a follow-up on DB Error: constraint violation on changing case status.

1 Answer 1

0

I'm not really sure how you created the first one but first make sure Case Clients is one of the table joins in your search criteria, and then in the dropdown instead of Zeige Fall choose "Other...", and then put in civicrm/contact/view/case?reset=1&action=view&cid=[Case_CaseContact_Contact_01.id]&id=[id]. The token for the contact id might be slightly different depending on your search - you can use the </> dropdown to select the correct token.

6
  • The first table was created a couple of months ago with a different CiviCRM version. The case client is included in the join. Building the link myself works but is more of a workaround to me. Can anybody reproduce this behaviour of the "Show Case" feature?
    – Jan
    Commented May 3 at 15:51
  • Searchkit has been known to generate wrong links for a long time (e.g. lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/-/issues/2509). If manage case links ever had the cid I'm not sure when that was. I can see in 5.69 they don't. So I don't know when your working one was created. Does it have a created date in the main searchkit listing?
    – Demerit
    Commented May 3 at 17:06
  • The working table display was created on 24. August 2023. Should I create a bug issue for this?
    – Jan
    Commented May 4 at 15:46
  • I looked at 5.65 which was the security release before Aug 2023. It seems there was no View Case option then so the only choice was to use Other and manually put in the link! So that must have been how you did it.
    – Demerit
    Commented May 4 at 17:23
  • Maybe. I still don't get why there are two different versions of that feature in the current release.
    – Jan
    Commented May 5 at 13:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.