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?

Hello All,

At present we have all our KEServer web link’s (for Metastorm Provision V6.1.2) working on http

As a part of ever-greening initiative we are planning to move http sites to https.

Can you please let me know if there will be an affect on functionality,

and also mention if any limitations with the application and its compatibility.

It will be helpful if you can provide us with the procedure/documentation for the movement of Provision URL’s from http to https.

Thanks,

Paul.

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

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

We have a back-end code on button click which takes 4seconds or even more . Is it possible to show a hour glass until the code completes execution..!!?

A minor designer suggestion.

Do you think you could in the future we could have this feature like you do with excel worksheets in a workbook ?

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.

When Side by Side is configured the eEvent synonym that is created in 7.6 should point to a view that pulls data from both the 7.6 eEventBackup table and the 9.x eEvent table (e.g. evw_EventListAll that is created in the 9.x database).

At the moment 7.6 processes that use eEvent for things like audit trail will need to be updated when side by side is enabled in order to get a full event history and updated again when side by side is disabled once all processes have been migrated.

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.

Provide the ability in the Designer to define a collection of Form Names and Folder IDs (as expressionable properties) in a stage's Forms property that would be displayed as folder pages at runtime (if the user has the appropriate rights to view the form).

This functionality would be useful in child folders to view forms from the parent folder, e.g. a common approval process displaying a summary form from the parent folder with information that the approver requires in order to make their decision.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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 have a need to do workflow models that show various scenarios for a process and as a result use Aliased activities to be able to show a given activity being done by more than one actor in different situations w/in the same workflow model.  Since by definition an Alias is an EXACT duplicate representation of a single activity object, I am not sure why it is important to add that activity to the related process model as a result.

I just got done creating a workflow model with 5 Aliased activities and it rendered the process model worthless since "Receive Customer Order" now appears 6 times total.  There's no value to showing aliased activities in a process model as they serve no purpose other than to confuse.  Please help.