We are working on a demo application and we had a need to retrieve the comments on an activity in a workflow. Today morning one of my colleagues approached me regarding the same. I was not of much help to her. Few hours later she figured out that the comments were to be retrieved from the package (dmi_package). I was disappointed because I realized that I knew it but it was lost somewhere in my mind. I decided to once again explore the comments in a workflow.
I remember that the comments are stored as objects of type dm_note. I fired a simple select query on my docbase for retrieving all the objects of type dm_note.
SELECT * FROM dm_note
While scrolling through the result, I noticed that the column for a_content_type was displaying the value ‘crtext’ for all the results. The content type ‘crtext’ is used for the txt/notepad documents and I recalled immediately that the comments are stored in the file store as txt files.
Thus, in a way dm_note is similar to dm_document. I was eager to check the supertype of dm_note. I used the following query for the same.
SELECT super_name FROM dm_type WHERE name = 'dm_note'
The result was dm_sysobject. I was on the right track. Even the txt file for dm_note should be stored as dmr_content. I was happy to find that the i_contents_id of a dm_note object was of the format ’06XXXXXXXXXXXXXX’. I used the same query to get the content file path on the file system which I have mentioned in my earlier post regarding dmr_content.
EXECUTE GET_PATH FOR '06XXXXXXXXXXXXXX'
I got the following file path as a result:
I navigated to the mentioned file path on my file store and as expected 3c.txt had the comments that were entered in the workflow task.
As I knew that the attached documents in a workflow are actually linked to the package which in turn is linked to workflow, it was quiet logical that even the comments (the dm_note objects) are linked to the package. I found that the dmi_package has an attribute called r_note_id and it was repeating. This is the attribute which links the comments with the package. I checked the Object Relation diagram to confirm it.
I was correct in saying that the comments are linked to package much in a similar way as attached documents are linked to it.
I realize that I have left a gap regarding the linkage of documents in a workflow (package) and workflow in general. I will try to bridge it in my next post.