The assignment activity always shows the space below the Assignment Statements grid even when no expression is selected.  This means that we can only view 5 assignments at a time and have to scroll to see more.  If is very common to do more than 5 assignments in one go when initializing or clearing fields as in the example below.  Can we change this to make the grid fill in the empty space when no assignment is selected?

This will help us define some common functionlity in one common library and resue it in other library.

I cam across this limitation when I wanted to define one library for connection and another one for reusable components which uses the connections.

This way I can have conenction library specific to Dev and Production deployed separately without having to deploy it as part of adding/upgrading additional workflows.

As has been pointed out, it would be nice to show which fields in an editable grid are read-only. I believe this was done in previous versions, but I am not certain.

We require the functionality to remove the 'Upload' option from the select when adding an attachment clip to a form and configuring it for DMS support.

i.e. the only option then available to the user will be Select - therefore the user can then only select the document from the DMS when clicking on the attachment clip.



Is it possible to have this functionality in a future release?

It should be possible to allow panels to be manually resizable.

At the moment, the width and height of a panel is always fixed.

Currently if you have a script run on form submission and that script returns a false value it will prevent the submission operation from completing. How about the same sort of capability on a "When button pressed" client side event on a "Server Operation" button? This way if you are using buttons to add or delete things from a grid or external data source you can provide your own custom validation and choose to cancel the add or delete "server operation" without any additional futzing around.

Although I can't think of a use case off hand, perhaps make this standard functionality that for all client side scripts, on all form element types, if the script returns a false the server operation/dependency post doesn't get performed.

As an end user, I would like to be able to edit folder pages directly in the folder, without having to click on a action and have a pop-up fom just to make it editable so that I can quickly alter data.

To do this, we could easily add proerties in the stage for forms assigned to show whether it can be editable, and by which role.  If the form is editable, when the folder page is displayed, the fields should be editable along with save and cancel buttons.  IF the user selects an action after having applied edits, they should be promted to save their changes.  All edits should still be audited in the eEvent table.

From my experience this is one of the most common requests by end users of the BPM and is always an objection I have to work around as a consultant or architect of a system using MBPM.

The process designer already has the handy property called "Confirm action" for situations where we want to transition the work item, but don't need to show or gather custom data.  However, the message is hard coded to be "Are you sure?", which is rarely useful.  I often want to supply custom confirmation messages for actions that are performed as this provides better guidance and usability.  

Please add an expressionable property to allow me to enter a custom message so that I don't have to create my own custom form for to handle these messages.

The "Default Usage" setting is very good to provide us a way to perform core validation on a form level for marking fields as either being required, optional, read-only or hidden. When we start to consider multiple rows of data we begin to use a metaphor similar to the below image where you have a few fields, some buttons to add the contents into a grid (or business object) and on completion of the operation the dependencies trigger and refresh the grid. (In fact this is the most common use I have made for using buttons on forms)

At the moment you need to handle this approach manually, including ensuring you have data in the fields that need data, prompting the user if they are sure they want to "Delete" that row, indicating which hidden field get's the id for the row on the grid that drives visibility (or activating) the Update/Delete buttons etc.

This could be a matter of enabling on a form segment that you can indicate these fields are required for an add/update operation, but not for form submission and indicating which buttons on the segment are the Add/Update buttons. Then having visual script activities that take the visible fields and add them to an associated business object that the grid is based off. This logic could be baked into the compiled version of the form that is stored in the database I would expect and require almost no updates to the Engine. (This could be the start of allowing people to create re-usable composite sets of controls to share in their libraries).

Important to remember that there may be a mix of fields on the form contributing to the grid in the above example and general form submission. Each having a different meaning for required and being validated differently if a button is pressed versus a form submitted.

In Metastorm 9 the SQL Connection string is stored in multiple locations.  Why can't the Administration Web App and the Deployment Service store their DB Connection string in the registry like the engine?  Or better yet, allow all 3 to use the engine setting in the registry?

CHRIS

Would it be possible to have some integration with Team Foundation Server as a code repository to auto check out files in BPM9 as they are modified?

We currently have to check out the entire solution, and that is quite time consuming.

CHRIS

I have a notebook where all shared objects come together and are associated up to capabilities -- this is our Enterprise Architecture notebook.  After we do the original get shared objects the shared object source notebooks often continue to grow (new systems, orgs etc).  Who would possibly have the time to go back and sight compare and add each incremental shared object one at a time!!!  We need the option upon doing a synchronization to have PV say "There are 21 additional shared objects not currently in this notebook, do you want to add them during the synchronization?"  If we say yes, it adds them.

Please help!

The scripting ribbon does not have any find/replace options. This makes is occasionally necessary to copy the text into some other text editor. Kindly add the ability to do find/replace functions within the Metastorm Designer.

Custom proerties for an object are great.  But they would be even  better if I could determine which order they appear in (currently alpa order) and also allow me to mute / hide a built-in property.  This way I can essentially build a custom data-entry form for the properties -- in the order that is untuitive to the user.

Ok, picture a notebook with 90 workflows and 90 process models.  Each workflow model has about 7 layers.  When you publish, the publishing function considers each layer sort of like a separate model - you can choose to publish each layer or not independently.  As a result, when I tell PV I want to publish all 90 workflows, it adds 630 entries because each workflow as 7 layers.  I'd rather not have to go hand exlude each layer like I did once.  I'd rather have a check box to include / exclude layers.  Please.  With sugar on top?

Since PV is so feature-rich, I highly suggest a much bigger focus on content accessibility and presentation.  Anything that can be done to make content easy to get to and VERY professional looking and pleasing to the eye will be money well spent.  We need a much better standard graphics library of common things - a warehouse, a plant (that doesnt look like a two-dimensional b/w cartoon), a phone, a desk, an office building.  Just look at, ahem, Visio's arsenal of templates/grahphics - maybe not the best but much better.  We need better / clearner means of managing galleries that does not produce duplicate icons, easy publishing (see my other posts).

In my opinion the current state represents 60% vs. where we need to get to in this area.  It needs to draw the eye of the executive team, be very slick and easy to navigate via web portal, printed graphics need to be eye-catching, etc.