I submitted an RFE to IBM and would appreciate votes if this would help you, too!
Allow users with “no access” to select related reports in embedded query sections and to have access to reports shared with directly with them.
- “No access” really means that users can still see data in embedded query sections in forms, they just can’t click through to the linked record. There are lots of potential benefits here as we could share reports with specific columns but not allow users to drill in and view data they shouldn’t.
- “Read Only” access, which I’ve heard as an alternative still allows users to click through query results and view data we may not want them to view.
[Admin: The same question is also posted in the TRIRIGA Around the World Facebook group. To see other related posts, use the RFE tag.]
We have a requirement to approve a record if anyone (not everyone) from the list approves it. For example, the approval requirement for contracts contains two users, A and B. If user A approves a contract, then it gets approved without user B. And vice versa, if user B approves it first, then user A is skipped. Can we do this?
Recently, I had an opportunity to test this, specifically, two users at level 1 and two users at level 2, etc. After speaking with the development team, each user at each level must approve the record. This is working as designed. There is no plan to change that behavior at this time. I believe that there is an open RFE to request the functionality in a future release. I suggest either opening an RFE or voting for the existing RFE if you need that functionality.
[Admin: This post is related to the 10.21.15 post about group approvals. To see other related posts, use the Approvals tag.]
I am running into this same issue (“Remit To” and “Paid By” details on the payment instruction, from 07.22.14; RFE ID 56092). We are using TRIRIGA 10.4.2.1/126.96.36.199.
Has there been any update on whether this fix has been applied to a future release? We are also running into an issue where if we create a “One Time Payment” off the “Payment Processing” (Find) link, there is no way to associate the “One Time Payment” to a payment instruction. Has anyone developed a workaround for that as well?
[Admin: To see other related posts, use the Payments tag or RFE tag.]
I have a summary report that has two BOs, grouped first by project, and then by cost code, and summed by amount.
When the report runs, it shows the totals as expected. When I click one of the lines in the report, I expect to see a tabular report showing, for that project, cost code, and amount, the values that contribute to the total only. Instead, all the projects and all the cost codes are displayed, as well as what I want to see. Is there a way in a summary report to click on a line and see only the lines that make up the total?
Unfortunately, it is not possible to configure the report to do what you are expecting here. You may want to develop a BIRT report to accomplish this. You could look at hierarchical reports as an option as well, but you might lose some of the summary options. You might want to submit a request for enhancement (RFE) on this.
[Admin: To see other related posts, use the Summary tag or Drilldown tag.]
I’ve noticed that if the record is read-only in its current state, we can still edit this record via the editable query. Is it possible to set editable fields, or the whole record, to read-only conditionally? For example, according to status?
Unfortunately, the platform does not handle this requirement. I would recommend adding a request for enhancement (RFE) for consideration in a future release.
[Admin: To see other related posts, use the Editable tag.]
Is there a way to default a system filter or user filter with a specific value? So, if the user clicks on the button, that value runs the query? Then, the user has the option to remove the default value in the filter, which would display all the records. My other option is to create Related Reports with each specific default system filter.
No. We could potentially pre-populate the default filter values on the initial report, but I am not sure it would be best for usability to ask the user to delete these values in order to query for “all” records. Unless most of the time, the user would want to run with the default filters. Actually, it might be an interesting RFE. Maybe as an alternative to the prompt before query? Feel free to request the RFE here.
[Admin: To see other related posts, use the Filter tag or RFE tag.]