4 of 4 people found this helpful
This will depend on the type of relationship that you have defined for this scenario. If you are trying to use the OOtB ServiceReqAssociatedServiceReq, this relationship will not work for this scenario; this relationship was setup to only display child requests for a parent; with this type of relationship you will not see that same relationship from the Child to the Parent on this tab. So trying to link through this relationship may cause issues like what you are seeing.
With the scenario you are looking to accomplish you will likely need a new relationship defined as a Zero/Many-to-Zero/Many, ServiceReq to ServiceReq; this many-to-many relationship will automatically use the fusionlink table for storing the relationships. Once created you can then add this to a child panel on the Service Request layout. Now when you link a ServiceReq through this type of relationship you should see it from both requests.
Please respond if you have any additional questions. I did take some assumptions to be able to answer this question, let me know if I was off-base at all.
I've created a few of these backwards links across different business objects and as above it depends on the scenario and sometimes you have to create a parentlink field which will store the parent_recid for the relationship
Awesome, glad that adding a link field resolved this for you. Looks like you were not using a many-to-many relationship as I assumed in my original response; sorry i did not have much insight into what you were trying to accomplish.
The link field should only be necessary if it is NOT a many-to-many relationship. A single link field won't be able to keep multiple RECIDS for a many-to-many relationship... If it is a many-to-many it will use the fusionlink table.
As a side note, I would warn not to use the OOTB ServiceReqAssociatedServiceReq relationship for this purpose, as it is used to simply display child services requests related to a parent service request, so it was designed appropriately OOTB, and is different from the relationship you are trying to define. The reason I mention this is that this relationship OOTB would give you the original outcome you were questioning.