APPS.PV_MATCH_V2_PUB dependencies on AS_ACCESSES

Line 1310: || ' and pvpp.partner_party_id in ( select a.customer_id from as_accesses_all a '

1306: l_where := l_where || ' , hz_parties partner '
1307: || ' where t.party_id = pvpp.partner_id '
1308: || ' and pvpp.partner_party_id = PARTNER.party_id '
1309: || ' and pvpp.status = ''A'' '
1310: || ' and pvpp.partner_party_id in ( select a.customer_id from as_accesses_all a '
1311: || ' where a.salesforce_id = :bv' || l_bind_count
1312: || ' and a.sales_lead_id is null and a.lead_id is null) ';
1313:
1314: elsif (isVad) then

Line 2739: from as_accesses asac

2735: cursor lc_get_matched_partners (pc_lead_id number)
2736: is
2737: select asac.partner_customer_id ,
2738: 'SALESTEAM' source , access_id, 99999999999
2739: from as_accesses asac
2740: where asac.lead_id = pc_lead_id
2741: and asac.sales_lead_id is null
2742: and (asac.partner_cont_party_id is not null
2743: or asac.partner_customer_id is not null )

Line 2931: -- the as_accesses_all table. Because of this we could never rank the partners added

2927: **/
2928:
2929: -- Commenting out this delete statement as a fix for the ranking issue if the partners
2930: -- came from salesteam. The salesteam rows were being deleted and then queried from
2931: -- the as_accesses_all table. Because of this we could never rank the partners added
2932: -- from salesteam. This change in conjunction with a change in the java layer gets us
2933: -- the desired result. Please refer to bug 3614435 for more details.
2934: /*
2935: delete from pv_lead_assignments