Why aren’t Group record changes copied through object migration?


Why aren’t Group record changes copied through object migration?

The short answer is that IBM TRIRIGA sees this as an unsupported customization of the Group record. Let’s clarify this further. Even though technically, behind the scenes, Groups are record data, they are currently considered TRIRIGA platform-owned and so, controlled BOs (business objects).

The platform controls exactly what Group data the object migration (OM) can export/import. Thus, any fields added to the Group BO will not be recognized by OM when exporting/importing Group records. Modifications to any platform-owned and controlled BOs are not supported. This does not just apply to Group BOs only.

If the BO is a platform-controlled object and any changes are not supported, then why does the platform currently allow changes to it?

IBM TRIRIGA currently does not prevent users from modifying any BOs, even the ones that are specifically necessary for core platform functionality. The Group BO, Document BO, and triPlatformObjectLabelManager BO are just a few examples. Although the platform does nothing to prevent users from modifying these BOs, TRIRIGA does not support the modification of any of these.

For these core platform BOs, the object migration tool is designed to pull exactly what it needs for the designed platform functionality when exporting/importing the record data tied to these BOs. In other words, any modifications will compromise the TRIRIGA platform integrity, so it becomes an unsupported action if done so.

The wiki on Core objects in TRIRIGA Application Platform functionality details the core platform business objects that should not be modified. Meanwhile, for the expressed requirement to see Group modifications exported/imported with Group record data, a request for enhancement (RFE) was submitted and will be considered for a potential platform change in a future TRIRIGA release.

[Admin: This post is related to the 11.07.17 post about core objects you shouldn’t modify. To see other related posts, use the Groups tag or Object Migration tag.]

Continue reading

Advertisements

Is there a way for CAD Integrator to have multiple layers of labels?


We are working on CAD integrator (for AutoCAD) and we are wondering if it is possible to generate labels for spaces (based on label style) on different layers of the floor plan. For example, displaying the name and area on triLabelLayer and space class on triClassLayer. Actually, it seems that all the labels are created on the triLabelLayer. Is it possible to customize to allow multiple layers for labels?

I reviewed this with the developer. It would be a request for enhancement (RFE).

[Admin: To see other related posts, use the Integrator tag.]

Continue reading

How do you customize the menu of CAD Integrator for AutoCAD?


Regarding the IBM TRIRIGA CAD Integrator plugin for AutoCAD, is it possible to customize the menu? Such as changing the name or hiding some menu item? If yes, do you know which files have to be changed?

I reviewed this with the developer. It would be a request for enhancement (RFE).

[Admin: This post is related to the 06.22.16 post about adding a menu item to CAD Integrator. To see other related posts, use the Integrator tag.]

Continue reading

Is there a way to switch from the company view to facility project?


By default, the “Company|Project” toggle switcher allows switching to a capital project. Is it possible to switch to a facility project?

No. The facility project was not created with the same structure as the capital project. So the silo behavior that is associated to the capital project is not provided for facility project. But it would be possible to create a custom solution to do so. Or if you would like to see this sort of behavior in the as-shipped application, you might enter an RFE to request that enhancement.

[Admin: This post is related to the 02.13.17 post about project context. To see other related posts, use the Project Context tag or “capital project” search phrase.]

Continue reading

Can you remove graphics from a floor record?


If a person mistakenly adds a floor drawing to an incorrect floor, there is no method of using IBM TRIRIGA tools (TRIRIGA itself or CAD Integrator) to actually remove the graphic from the floor record.

A request for enhancement (RFE ID 109781) has been created to address this issue. I respectfully request that you vote for this RFE if you would like to see the CAD Integrator product have the ability to remove the graphic from the floor record. If you do not currently have an IBM ID, you can sign up for one at no cost.

[Admin: This post is related to the 12.13.16 post about deleting or unpublishing a floor plan. To see other related posts, use the RFE tag or Integrator tag.]

Continue reading

RFE: Can you allow users with “no access” to select related reports?


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.]

Continue reading

Is there a way to set up parallel or peer approvals for a group?


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.]

Continue reading