Monday, September 29, 2014

What’s up with CRM not working in latest version of Chrome?

You might have noticed that some features of CRM are no longer working after updating to Chrome 37. This posts provides some insight into work-arounds and possible solutions

All of the sudden seems like the CRM 2011 application is broken for Chrome for some features such as editing workflow send email steps. This is because CRM relies on a web API called showModalDialog() which Google Chrome is no longer supporting as of version 37, you can read more about it here. Note that it was deprecated since version 35 and Firefox has also deprecated that API.

So what can we do about it? Well, the easiest work around for now is to use Internet Explorer while you can find a more permanent solution. Microsoft has also published another temporary work-around so that you can continue to use Chrome: KB3000002. However, there are three bad news with that workaround. The first is that it requires each user to apply the work-around. The second is that users must have a highly privileged account on their work station in order to be able to apply the workaround, and we know that in the enterprise world, very few users will be given enough privileges or access to make the changes suggested by Microsoft. Finally the third bad news is that the work-around is only valid until May 2015!

Microsoft had quite a job to do in order to fix the entire CRM application to remove all the usage of showModalDialog(). This will probably take some time before we are able to apply a patch at the server level which will automatically fix the problem for all users. Perhaps before that happens there will be an easier work-around solution that Microsoft can come up with but don’t get your hopes up.

I guess this article is no good news for those who refuse to give IE a try, it’s one of the consequences of multi-browser support and Microsoft having little control on when other browsers drop support for API's that CRM relies on.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Should I use CRM personal views or system views?

When customizing Dynamics CRM the question often arises on whether to use System Views or Personal Views. They both have pros and cons that I will explore in this post.

Let’s first look at what is different. I had previously posted an article about the differences between personal and system views, here is a summary:





Can be owned by a user or team

Owned by the organization


By default it is only visible to the user who creates it and users/teams with whom it was shared

By default it is visible to all users.


Can be protected using the standard privilege depths for the entity (none, user, BU, BU and child BU, Organization). This can allow you to make a chart/dashboard accessible to some users but not all and be able to select which users can see which charts/dashboards.

User access can only be configured to all or none (if a user has access to a system chart/view then the user will have access to ALL system charts/views.


Can be shared with a specific user or team. For example the CEO might want to share a chart only with a VP.

Cannot share or unshare system views/dashboards/charts since they are all visible at the organization level (by everyone).


Cannot be included in a solution. This is a show stopper if you need to move personal views/dashboards/charts across deployments and organizations. You would need to copy them manually. For charts, you can export the XML and import as a system chart.

System views/dashboards are solution aware and are fully supported to be transported in solutions.

CUD operations (Create, update, delete)

Most users will have access to create their own personal views, dashboards and charts.

Only high privileged users and system administrators should have access to CUD operations on system views, charts and dashboards.


The problem with system views is that:

  1. Requires IT to create/update and deploy the views
  2. Cannot define which users see the view, all users will see all system views.
  3. Can very quickly clutter the view selector with numerous views making usability a challenge when the users have too many views to choose from.

The problem with personal views is that:

  1. Often leads to excessive sharing, if every user creates views and shares them with the team then volume of views will grow very fast making it hard for users to find the views they actually use.N
  2. Once a view has been shared with you, you cannot “reject” it if you don’t want it. You would have to ask the view owner to un-share it with you.


We will explore more in details what best practices can be leveraged to reduce these problems:

  • If the view is only required for a small subset of users it is better to leverage shared personal views
  • If the view is to be changed often by business users then it is easier as personal view.
  • If the view is a default view that everyone needs and does not change often it is better as system view.
  • If your entity already has 10+ system views, you should consider whether you really need to add more system views or if you can manage at the personal view level.
  • If different users need to see different information (e.g. service vs. marketing user) for the same entity then you can leverage personal views shared with a team (service or marketing team)
  • There should be small number of users who are trained to create, maintain and share personal views. You should avoid everyone sharing their own views with everyone else.
  • All users should be trained to create their own personal views but be mindful before sharing it.
  • Before disabling a user in CRM please ask the user to delete, assign or un-share all personal views.
  • When sharing a view, make sure that you also share the “share” privilege so that way you give everyone the chance to opt-out to your view or share with other users:



What happens to personal views if user leaves the company (disabled user)

If a user has created views and the user has shared these views with multiple users then it can be a problem when the view owner leaves the company and the user is disabled because the shared views continue to be active and all users with whom the views were shared will continue to see those views. However, at this point it is not possible to delete or update the views that were created by a disabled user. If you find yourself in this situation you will have to open the disabled user and click on “Reassign Records” so you can reassign the personal view to a new owner. (Note: This will reassign all the records in the system, not just the system views).



How to reject personal views

If another user shared with you a view that you don’t want to see, you have 2 options:

  1. If the user who shared the view was kind enough to share with you the “share” privilege then you can easily opt-out to the view by removing yourself or your team from the sharing list.
  2. However, if you are less lucky and the view owner only shared “Read” privileges with you then you will have find out who is the owner of the view and ask them to remove you. To find the view owner go to Advanced Find, select the entity from the dropdown and click “Saved Views” button. Now you can find out who is the owner of the view that you don’t want and you can ask them to remove you.


How to assign a personal view

If you created a personal view and you no longer want to maintain it, you can assign it to another user by opening the list of your saved views and clicking “Assign Saved Views”




How can IT identify which personal views were shared and with whom

There is no easy way to find all the shared views in CRM, you can create a custom report in CRM or simply run the following query in your database:


select userquery.Name AS 'View Name', userquery.OwnerIdName as 'View Owner', SYSTEMUSER.FullName 'Shared with user', TEAM.Name as 'Shared with Team'

FROM principalobjectaccess

JOIN userquery on objectid = userquery.userqueryid

left outer JOIN SYSTEMUSER on principalid = SYSTEMUSER.SystemUserId

left outer JOIN TEAM on principalid = TEAM.TeamId

WHERE objecttypecode = 4230


This will give you a list of all the views, the view owner and the users/teams with whom each view is shared. You can use the SQL statement above to create a CRM report that is available to CRM users from the CRM application.

Monday, September 15, 2014

CRM Auto-numbering: What happens when you reach the maximum number

I’ve often been asked this question about the out-of-the box auto-numbering feature in CRM: What happens to my auto-number when I get over 99’999 cases in CRM?

Let’s look at how auto-numbering works out of the box. Each of the supported entities (contracts, cases, articles, quotes, orders, invoices and campaigns) have the following configuration:


Prefix: This is a 1-3 character prefix that you can use to identify which entity the number references. In the example above if you see INV-01000-AS7F you know that this number references an invoice because of the “INV” prefix. This prefix is configurable.

Number: This is a sequential number that will be incremented with each new record. You see this number holds between 4 and 5 digits. Hence the question of what happens if you have more records than the number of digits can support.

Suffix: This is a system-generated random number that is supposed to be unique. I t’s very obscure why there is a need for a suffix, unfortunately it is not configurable and you cannot remove it. All you can do is specify the length between 4 and 6 characters.


Initially I thought that when your number goes over 99999 then it will simply change to 100000. However, I could not find any documentation that specifies how this works behind the scenes or what to expect. So I had no choice but to confirm my theory by testing:


This is good news. so I even went ahead and tested what happens if you have 1 million cases and found the same result:


Therefore there is nothing to worry about (except the lack of documentation).

Monday, July 21, 2014

Mesa de Expertos CRM – Verano 2014

Este 22 de Julio no te pierdas la mesa de expertos sobre la importación de datos a CRM. Estaremos cubriendo 30 tips en 30 minutos, no me había imaginado la cantidad de consejos valiosos que existen sobre la importación de datos.

Como siempre, el evento es organizado por La Comunidad CRM y tiene como panelistas a varios MVPs de habla hispana:

  • Gus Gonzalez (MVP, Zero2Ten)
  • Damián Sinay (MVP, Remoting Coders)
  • Ramón Tebar (MVP, MetroBank)
  • Demian Raschkovan (MVP, Infoaván)
  • Gonzalo Ruiz (MVP, Avanade)
  • Pablo Peralta (MVP, Dynamix UruIT y CRMGamified)
  • Atilio Rosas (MVP, Consultor autónomo)
  • Jimmy Larrauri (Microsoft)

Para todos los detalles y para registrarte, has click aquí.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Different Entity Flavours: New entity, new form or same same?

Often times we have different “flavours” of the same entity. For example, we might have cases related to customer service enquiries and other type of cases related to product failures. So the question often arises: How to best model in CRM these different types of entities, should we use the same entity? the same form? This posts aim to provide some guidance for that scenario.

In the example above, you might be hesitating whether or not these 2 different type of cases should use the same entity and have a simple “qualifying” attribute (dropdown) to identify the case type or whether it makes more sense to have a different custom entity for each case type. If you select the same entity, you might also wonder whether the same form should be used for all case types or(maybe with some dynamic show/hide sections) or whether different forms should be used and route to the correct form depending on the value of the “case type” field.

For the sake of this example, I will stick to the “case type” example, although I have seen the same scenario come up with other entities such as contacts and opportunities. When you find yourself in the situation in which you are not sure whether or not to re-use the same entity or even whether or not to reuse the same forms, here are few questions that can help you get started with your assessment:

1. Do you have different security requirements for each case type? If you have a requirement such that a given role/team can only have access to a specific case type then you' should consider using different entities since it will be much easier to manage the security granularity for each of the case types without having to write and maintain tons of code for it.

2. Do you execute reports and BI on all cases aggregated? In this case if you split your case into multiple entities then your reporting can be more challenging and simple charts such as “case per type” would become a pain to do.

3. How much of the business logic is shared? If most of the business logic applies across the board (e.g. same escalation rules, same custom ribbon commands, etc) then it would be easier to re-use the same entity than having to duplicate all that business logic you implemented using JS or plugins on your entity. Also consider whether you will need some of the out-of-the-box business logic (e.g. escalations or allotments for cases) that you don’t want to re-invent if you use a new entity.

4. How much overlap do you have in the fields of each case type? If the only field that the different case types have in common is the “title” then this is a clear indication that your case types are in essence different entities. It would be annoying for end users when they use advanced find or they are creating views/dashboards that they see a long list of fields but they don’t know which field applies to what case type. If most of your fields are applicable across all case types then it would make more sense to share the same entity.

5. Are the optionset values the same for all your case types? Consider for example the “Source” field. Depending on your case types the applicable values might be different, for example “Twitter” might be a valid source for a customer service case but does not apply to an operational case of equipment failure. Think about the effort required to filter or validate option sets if they are too different for each of your case flavours.


By now you might have a better idea of whether or not to re-use the same entity or define a new one; there is no one-size-fits-all or blank/white answer, sometimes you need to consider multiple factors and make a difficult decision based on the information you know (e.g. the questions above). Now, if you decide to re-use the same entity you are left with the question: Should I use the same form or define a new form for each case type? Again, there are pros and cons of each approach and I’ll just attempt to provide you food for thought so you can make a better decision to the question above.

1. You can create a “base” form which has a dropdown for the case type. This would be the form that users would see when creating a new case. Depending on the case that they select then you have JavaScript onload that automatically navigates to the appropriate form. This works very well but there is a bad side effect from user experience: Each time you open a case, the last used form is opened by default even if it is not the correct form for the case type you opened. The user will see a delay in which the old form is loaded and after a few seconds it will forward to the correct form and reload it. If the same user has to deal with multiple forms all the time then this effect can be quite annoying and unfortunately there is no functionality in CRM such that the record opens on a specific form without the “jumping”. However, if typically users will only open a specific case type then it would work fine because the same form will always be used by default and rarely will the user see the form switching automatically.

2. Using additional forms allows you to configure role-base security. However, you should probably not leverage this because if you restrict who can see which forms then users might open a case record in the wrong form and the system is unable to navigate to the appropriate form if the user does not have the required role. If you leverage multiple forms per entity depending on case type then it is recommended you allow all users who have access to case to see all forms for case. You can leverage FLS if you want to hide specific fields.

3. Consider creating a common section/tab on the form which contains all the fields that apply to all cases. Then you can add one tab per each case type and then hide the tab dynamically on-load depending on the value of the case type. This works great from user experience because they don’t see the form “redirecting” and it is much faster than having multiple forms. The down-side is that it could get complex if you have many fields and subsections that overlap with some case types but not others. I usually prefer this approach when things are simple (only a few fields are different).

4. Remember that restricting access on a given form to  given role does not restrict the access on the record itself. If you don’t want your customer service team to see system failure case types then restricting the form will not be enough, they would still be able to open system failure cases but see them from the customer service form (which is odd and can cause confusion). If you really have strong security restrictions consider using separate entities or field level security (FLS).

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Mesa de Expertos “de primavera” en Comunidad CRM


To all my Spanish-speaking readers, Comunidad CRM is hosting again an “expert round table” to discuss some of the new features of Dynamics CRM and answer your questions. You can count on the participation of some of the Dynamics CRM MVPs:

  • Gus Gonzalez (MVP, Zero2Ten)
  • Damián Sinay (MVP, Remoting Coders)
  • Ramón Tebar (MVP, MetroBank)
  • Demian Raschkovan (MVP, Infoaván)
  • Gonzalo Ruiz (MVP, Avanade)
  • Pablo Peralta  (MVP, UruIT Dynamix | CRMGamified)
  • Jimmy Larrauri (Microsoft)
  • Atilio Rosas  (MVP)


Don’t' miss this event, you can register here and also submit questions through the Comunidad website.

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Explaining the built-in SYSTEM and INTEGRATION users

If you have played with CRM long enough, you might have noticed the existence of 2 special user accounts: SYSTEM and INTEGRATION. In this post I’ll try to answer the typical questions I get around what these are and what you need to know about them.

Let me start with some of the facts and characteristics about these 2 user accounts which will help us draw some conclusions later on.



1. SYSTEM and INTEGRATION users have a different SystemUserId (Guid) across all CRM organizations (and CRM Online organizations). To get their user ids you’d have to perform a query (or Advanced Find).

2. These users are very well hidden from the application. They are technically “disabled” and they are even filtered out from the “Disabled Users” view. If you’d like to see them you’d have to build your own Advanced Find without the default filters.

3. Nobody can log in CRM as either of these 2 users.

4. These users are read-only. You are not able to change their teams, security, FLS, business unit or any other field.

5. They do not consume a license.

6. These users are always on the root business unit.

7. They don’t have a mailbox or the ability to send or receive emails.

8. No security applies to these users (any action is allowed when executing as SYSTEM or INTEGRATION), all security validations are bypassed.

9. Unofficial fact: Seems like you cannot impersonate these users in CRM Online from outside of plugins. I haven’t been able to impersonate SYSTEM or INTEGRATION from an external application calling into CRM Online (however, works fine on my OnPrem orgs).



By now you might be wondering why do we even care about these obscure users. The answer is: we shouldn’t; there is a reason why they are so hidden and sometimes unheard of. However, you might also be thinking that if you have another application integrating with CRM then you could make use of [for example] the SYSTEM/INTEGRATION users to make all service calls into CRM. This way, whenever let’s say an audited record is updated via your integration then it will show as updated by INTEGRATION user which could be a neat indicator that the update came from an external system. This is technically possible (quite easy actually), all you have to do is set the CallerId in your proxy (OrganizationServiceProxy.CallerId or CrmConnection.CallerId) to their userId whenever you create your proxy from the external system to call into CRM, this is what it would look like:


Similarly, if you are working from a plugin, you can configure the plugin step to execute as SYSTEM or INTEGRATION user. You can configure that in the Plugin Registration Tool or the Development Toolkit:


So now that you know how to impersonate these users, let’s explore the details of why we would do so:



1. Elevation of Privileges.

You might have some business logic implemented in plugins which should bypass security checks (e.g. auto-calculated or rollup fields). In that case it might be useful to run the plugin as SYSTEM user. Additionally, you will see in the audit history that the record has been updated by SYSTEM user which gives us a hint that the update was made by an automated logic of a plugin. On the other hand, you have to be very careful when doing this. The reason is that a plugin can trigger another plugin or a workflow and you might end up with a chain of plugins/workflows triggering. Once you elevate the privileges, every action after that will also run in elevated privilege mode (SYSTEM). Therefore you need to make sure that whatever chain of plugins/workflows will be triggered is OK to execute as SYSTEM. For example, sending an email as SYSTEM will fail because that user does not have a mailbox/email address so if anywhere in your plugin chain you send an email then you might have a problem.

Here is an example: You have tasks with different priorities. The priority of the case is automatically taken from the highest priority of the tasks associated. Not all users have access to update the priority of the case but any user can update the priority of their task which will rollup to the case via a plugin. When a case priority is set to “1” a plugin will send a warning email to the case owner. If you impersonate SYSTEM to rollup the task priority to the case priority you need to make sure that in your plugin that sends the email you set the “from” field, otherwise CRM will try to send the email from SYSTEM which won’t work.


2. Generic “system” user for system operations

These special users can work whever you want to do actions on the system programmatically and tag the action to a generic system user. A typical example is when you have integrations with other systems and you want the automatic integration in CRM to execute as a generic system user. For example, if you have integration with ERP system, and whenever a new account is created in ERP it should also be created in CRM. In that case the accounts in CRM would be created by “SYSTEM” or “INTEGRATION” user if you use impersonation to perform the account create under one of those user accounts.



As I mentioned earlier, impersonating these system accounts can have some bad side effects. The reason is that any action you perform under one of those user accounts can trigger plugins (which can trigger other plugins). You need to be very careful and make sure you understand that your impersonated action can trigger plugins then those plugins will also execute under the context of the SYSTEM /INTEGRATION accounts. Some plugins you might want to always execute under the context of the Calling User (depending on the scenario). The other things to consider is that these special accounts have no User Settings entity associated (they have no language, time zone, format, etc.) and in some cases your customizations might rely on the existence of user settings for every user account. For example, in some plugins you might check that the user’s language or time zone is in order to execute some business logic. This would break if the plugin executes as SYSTEM/INTEGRATION.

Another issue with these accounts is that they are always at the root business unit. If a record is created by one of these accounts, the record will belong to the root business unit which can mean that many users in child business units will have no visibility into the record (unless they have organization-level privileges). You would have to make sure that you assign the records when they get created if you need those records to sit on different business units other than the root.



Impersonating SYSTEM/INTEGRATION can be useful for some scenarios for privilege elevation purposes; however, it does have its side effects or considerations as explained above. You need to carefully consider whether it makes sense to impersonate these user accounts given the side effects. Another alternative would be to create a new user (e.g. “CRM System User”) in AD and CRM and chose to impersonate that user whenever you are performing “system” transactions that should execute with elevated privileges. The advantage of doing that is that now you can control exactly how you configure that “super user”. You can choose to give it System Administrator role or a more restrictive role. You can decide whether or not to give it field-level permissions and in what business unit the user should be. Furthermore, you can configure a “system” mailbox so that this user is able to send “system” communications to end users (which can be quite useful as well and cannot be done with built-in SYSTEM/INTEGRATION account).

Note that if your plugins are configured to run under the context of a specific user (e.g. CRM System User) then it’s a good practice that this same user exists in all your environments (DEV/QA/Prod) with the same full name. If that is the case then you can safely transport your solutions and the impersonation configuration will be preserved when you transport plugins across your environments because CRM will be able to find the impersonating user by full name (even though the systemuserid and the AD accounts might not match it will still be able to resolve by full name).