Skip to main content
Closed

Dynamic staged model option to edit visibity in subjects

Related products:Software Factory
  • December 12, 2024
  • 5 replies
  • 47 views
  • Edwin Saan

When adding the trace fields with the dynamic model with the staged strategy have the unwanted effect that the trace fields are read-only instead of hidden in the subjects in the SF.

Possible solution, but I call it a workaround, is the option to create a variant if you want to hide the trace fields. In most lists you don’t want all the trace fields, which means that you have to create a variant for almost all subjects with a list (there are a lot!!!)

Can’t you make it possible that the trace fields are hidden by default in the lists and that as a SF user we can enable them in the default subjects. The variants are really meant as variant for f.e. a different user group, or a mobile screen type. These are not meant to default create to turn off the trace fields.

Thinkwise advises the staged strategy as preferred, but because of this side effect the already existing strategy’s are preferred for me!! Can this be changed. You don’t want a variant for each subject only for hiding the trace fields.

Did this topic help you find an answer to your question?

5 replies

Jeroen van den Belt
Administrator
Forum|alt.badge.img+9

Hi ​@Edwin Saan,

It should indeed not be necessary to create variants for all these tables.

These fields are likely added by a meta control procedure in your model, probably as part of a solution downloaded from the Thinkstore or perhaps added to your model in another way. Either way, this meta control procedure should be fully customizable to meet your needs.

For instance, you could configure it to set the default grid visibility of trace fields to hidden while allowing them to remain read-only for specific tables (e.g., those with a certain tag).

If you prefer to leave the original meta control procedure intact, you could also add a second meta control procedure to adjust the grid visibility of these fields. Make sure this new procedure has a higher order number, so it is executed later in the generation process.

Does this help?


Jeroen van den Belt
Administrator
Forum|alt.badge.img+9
NewNeeds feedback

Jeroen van den Belt
Administrator
Forum|alt.badge.img+9

Hi ​@Edwin Saan,

Could you please respond to my earlier comment? I believe that resolves the need to keep this idea open.


Jeroen van den Belt
Administrator
Forum|alt.badge.img+9

Since I haven’t received any updates, I’ll assume the idea has been resolved based on my previous message. I’ll close it for now, but it can be reopened if needed.


Jeroen van den Belt
Administrator
Forum|alt.badge.img+9
Needs feedbackClosed

Reply


Cookie policy

We use cookies to enhance and personalize your experience. If you accept you agree to our full cookie policy. Learn more about our cookies.

 
Cookie settings