Blackbaud CRM Database And Data Warehouse Reference Docs Are Getting A New Look! 8160

Blackbaud CRM Database And Data Warehouse Reference Docs Are Getting A New Look!

Published

We updated the style and location of the Blackbaud CRM Database and Data Warehouse reference materials.

What’s Happening?

We modernized the style

We updated the style of the Blackbaud CRM Database and Data Warehouse reference materials. The change you’ll see include:

  • Multiple navigation options: in-page, side-navigation, summary topics, and back-to-top. The options are indicated by red arrows in the following figure.

    79a05292c57b85c5d4d28a8d076881eb-huge-cr

  • Code copy button, as seen in the following figure

    05a2266bd2c3cc0f82b84efc4a84f8d5-huge-cr

  • What's new for each service pack
  • A refreshed style like SKY Developer

We hope everyone loves the new look!

We moved the docs to a new location

Beginning in January 2022, the Blackbaud CRM Database and Data Warehouse reference materials are moving to a new location. They are located here:

Don’t forget to bookmark those locations!

You can also find the documentation from the newly launched Blackbaud CRM Developers Resources site, located here: https://host.nxt.blackbaud.com/bbcrm-api/

News Blackbaud CRM™ and Blackbaud Internet Solutions™ Blog 01/27/2022 3:38pm EST
Added by Paula Hodgkins
  

Leave a Comment

1 Comments
Mitchell Gibbs Mitchell Gibbs Jan '22

Aspects of the new documentation are really promising. I particularly like the What's New content for objects.

I am a little puzzled by some of them though - I'm guessing they're in error. For example, in SP29, it indicates that several, seemingly important, fields are being removed from DIM_DESIGNATION. But it also indicates that indexes are being added to those fields. ?? We're testing SP28, so I don't have an SP29 environment to check. But I thought I'd post this in the hopes it is clear by the time we're at that point :-)

Thanks for the efforts!

Paula Hodgkins Paula Hodgkins Jan '22

Thank you for the feedback. Much appreciated! We updated the topic you referenced (along with others like it) to indicate that the foreign key relationship was removed from the field; the field itself was not removed.

Share: