8.3 New Years Wish List - please add to list

[PointsWell]

6. Form attributes that are READ ONLY (eg if PROTECT rule is true) should actually LOOK like they are read only. Today they look like READ/WRITE attributes except when you click on them - to edit them - nothing happens. My 'trick' is to add the READ only attributes inside an HTML box so at least they look READ only.

Along with this, it irks me that I can't [easily] have a button on the screen in DISABLED status.
... like until this BO has x, y & z entered and validated, THEN a particular button changes state from disabled to enabled (ie. not just appearing out of nowhere due to a READ PROTECT).

And also, using a VIEW still makes the field look like an editable field, even tho you are in VIEW mode (the user doesn't know this).

This too. I revert to building forms with HTML boxes when the form is not editable. This can be a PITA if/when you change the name of fields.

Though the VIEW command is not and uneditable state, you have to add NOEDIT to make it non editable. (See Note at p369 User Guide)

[aware_support]

1) F4 working correctly when bringing up Functions - its wonky
What exactly is the problem?
2) In a rule, Ctrl-Click on a Process to Open that Process, so we don't have to go digging thru a big tree on the left side to find it
Should already work like this. If it doesn't please send a properly formatted bug report to support
8 ) wish context assist would continue working in text view after a couple of line breaks (from RentProperty)
Should already work like this. If it doesn't please send a properly formatted bug report to support
14) Popup forms in Mobile to be responsive according to the resolution of the Mobile being used by user. (Ben)
Should already work like this. If it doesn't please send a properly formatted bug report to support
15) Conditional FINDs in Rules (see below)
I don't understand this. Why can't you use a process for this? (using FIND or DISPLAY).

SEND TO
This is already supported. What's the problem with it?

4. Click on Calendar to create new Appointment should (somehow) auto populate START/END attributes.
Should already work like this. If it doesn't please send a properly formatted bug report to support

5. Rules for buttons to set color. Right now seems to be a combo of JS/CSS when a rule or setting would be more scalable.
I don't understand this one
6. Form attributes that are READ ONLY (eg if PROTECT rule is true) should actually LOOK like they are read only. Today they look like READ/WRITE attributes except when you click on them - to edit them - nothing happens. My 'trick' is to add the READ only attributes inside an HTML box so at least they look READ only.
Can be easily done at the CSS level. I believe Aware IM assigns a special CSS class to such attributes. This class can be overridden.

[PointsWell]

15) Conditional FINDs in Rules (see below)
I don't understand this. Why can't you use a process for this? (using FIND or DISPLAY).

For instances when you have a referenced BO attribute and you are trying to filter based on EITHER OR criteria a Process wouldn't work.

Also it duplicates the number of queries that you have to build and maintain, one each for each of the conditions.

[aware_support]

Code: Select all

For instances when you have a referenced BO attribute and you are trying to filter based on EITHER OR criteria a Process wouldn't work.

Still don't understand. Filter where? Why can't you use built-in filters that allow you to specify AND/OR etc?

Code: Select all

Also it duplicates the number of queries that you have to build and maintain, one each for each of the conditions.

You can always use stored procedures, which, by the way, addresses all other problems as well.
We are not going to build conditions into Aware IM queries.

[PointsWell]

Code: Select all

For instances when you have a referenced BO attribute and you are trying to filter based on EITHER OR criteria a Process wouldn't work.

Still don't understand. Filter where? Why can't you use built-in filters that allow you to specify AND/OR etc?

A highly artificial example (you would do it differently in real life but I can't remember a real life issue atm)
Consider:
BO ORDER with
Order.Status of 'In Progress' OR 'Delivered' and a
Order.PaidStatus of 'Outstanding' OR 'Paid'
Order.psHandledBy is a reference to Employees

Employees.Department = 'Order Processing' OR 'Credit Control'

If you're in the process of delivering the order then the Order.psHandledBy should only allow Employees in Order Processing to be shown, but if the order has been delivered and is still outstanding you want the Order.psHandledBy field to show only Credit Control staff:

So the value of Order.psHandledBy should be filtered by:

Code: Select all

IF Order.Status='In Progress' AND Order.PaidStatus='Outstanding' THEN FIND Employees WHERE Employees.Department='Order Processing' ELSE 
IF Order.Status='Delivered' AND Order.PaidStatus='Outstanding' THEN FIND Employees WHERE Employees.Department='Credit Control'

The only way to achieve that is by duplicating the form and determining which form to show based on the Status and PaidStatus fields. This creates unnecessary redundancy if everything else on the form is identical except that filter.

You could probably build a stored procedure but then you are fragmenting the development across the application development environment and the database, which introduces fragility to the system if fields ever get renamed. You are also creating a barrier to use for non SQL/technical users, which seems to be counter to the AwareIM ethos.

An alternative would be to return the SQL editor for queries, which would keep the application within the development environment. Is there a technical limitation to Eclipse that prevents this?

[craigd]

SEND TO
This is already supported. What's the problem with it?

My request is for the ability to specify an arbitrary expression in the 'TO' argument.
For example,

Code: Select all

SEND <msg> TO [email protected]

Currently documentation says that 'TO' only supports a BO as its argument.

Another practical example: I have many LDAP users who will never use the AwareIM system, but they will receive emails from this system. If I reference LDAP users as non-persistent BOs I cannot easily send them mail. I cannot create this rule

Code: Select all

SEND <msg> TO LDAP_BO

because an LDAP BO doesn't have an attribute called 'EmailAddress'.

[craigd]

Rules for buttons to set color. Right now seems to be a combo of JS/CSS when a rule or setting would be more scalable.
I don't understand this one

Sorry, poorly worded.
Settings to set button color.
Something similar to the current Item display rules but associated with the panel buttons and the record buttons.
Doesn't necessary need a rule or expression - just would be nice to put a Delete button in RED and a Create button in GREEN without resorting to CSS

Adding an example. Look at the colorful bootstrap buttons (https://getbootstrap.com/docs/4.2/components/buttons/). Adding a setting on each button so that maybe sometimes we can add a little color to the interface.

[aware_support]

Code: Select all

The only way to achieve that is by duplicating the form and determining which form to show based on the Status and PaidStatus fields. This creates unnecessary redundancy if everything else on the form is identical except that filter.

Thanks for providing an example. General observation - please describe PROBLEMS, not SOLUTIONS.

A copy of the form is not the only solution to the filtering problem. I would create two form sections with applicability conditions - one will be shown when the order is in progress and another one - when the order is delivered. Different sections would use different filters. No need to create "conditional" queries.

Code: Select all

My request is for the ability to specify an arbitrary expression in the 'TO' argument... 
Currently documentation says that 'TO' only supports a BO as its argument.

To achieve this use use the BCC field in the notification to specify the address(es) to send to. Then do not use TO at all:
SEND MyNotification
The notification will be sent to all email addresses in the BCC field. I believe this should be documented.

[PointsWell]

Code: Select all

The only way to achieve that is by duplicating the form and determining which form to show based on the Status and PaidStatus fields. This creates unnecessary redundancy if everything else on the form is identical except that filter.

Thanks for providing an example. General observation - please describe PROBLEMS, not SOLUTIONS.

A copy of the form is not the only solution to the filtering problem. I would create two form sections with applicability conditions - one will be shown when the order is in progress and another one - when the order is delivered. Different sections would use different filters. No need to create "conditional" queries.

I understand what you are suggesting but 2 form sections still produces high levels of redundancy, it's effectively just merging two forms into one form with two sets of the almost same fields, which leaves scope for mistakes when updates are made.

[tford]

To achieve this use use the BCC field in the notification to specify the address(es) to send to. Then do not use TO at all:
SEND MyNotification
The notification will be sent to all email addresses in the BCC field. I believe this should be documented.

Yes, functionally in AwareIM this will work & is what I do today in some cases.

The challenge with the BCC approach is the emails are more likely to be flagged as spam. Lots of info on the internet about the BCC -> spam topic, but here is one:

https://blog.standss.com/why-you-should ... or-emails/

The second problem with the CC or BCC approach is that some users have inbox rules that route messages where they are not listed in the TO field to a secondary (less important) inbox. Their theory in doing so is that the sender just wanted me to read or be aware of this email & I was not the primary recipient, therefore it has a lower priority.

[BenHayat]

The second problem with the CC or BCC approach is that some users have inbox rules that route messages where they are not listed in the TO field to a secondary (less important) inbox. Their theory in doing so is that the sender just wanted me to read or be aware of this email & I was not the primary recipient, therefore it has a lower priority.

TRUE! Most corporate emails are setup like that.

[PointsWell]

Queries:

Stretch Query to bottom of page to work with Display x per page.

At present Display Unlimited per Page forces the selection of a query height, which is not compatible with Stretch grid to bottom of the screen.

[UnionSystems]

With increasing use of REST be nice to have a Category (folder) available within the Services node of the Business Spaces tree in the Configuration Tool .

[intra]

An updated version of log4j and functionally to ship the logger entries to the database backend would be helpful.

[intra]

Another one while i remember.

The ability to add comments in sections that have textual input.

either by having a "//" or "<#" & "#>" as boundary for programmer notes.