Propose your fantastic ideas regarding the Thinkwise Platform to our Product Team.
Goal: customizing the Universal GUI for different platformsIt could be helpful to tweak the Universal GUI based on the platform. We would like to make a difference in look & feel between mobile and universal logins.Currently there is no selector in the custom css, so selectors for ‘mobile’, ‘universal’, ‘windows’ and ‘web’ could do the trick
In the Themes used by Windows & Web it is possible to disable the display of icons on tabs. I was wondering where this could be set for Universal themes. I need to disable the icons on tab level. We only want to display icons on the tiles and not on tab level. This setting is not available in the Universal theme page of the SF.
To give the user a language choice as a user preference in the Universal UI.We also need this for ourselves to get rid of the different logins (demo_en, demo_eng, etc.) in the Insights application.
I'm missing this button in the GUI when I’m using a password field:Show password button I only see this: Can this 'Show password’ button be added? Else there is a possibility that I put in a wrong value.
In the Software Factory, we have the Icons screen where we can find every icon used in our project. However, if I reuse the icon for a label, this icon gets duplicated in my overview. As a result my overview gets crowded with identical icons: I would prefer to see the used labels as a detail list per icon. This would motivate the reuse of icons, because I would have a much more streamlined overview of all icons. This would also make the list of icons more manageable: instead of altering an icon per label, I can change a group of labels in one alteration of an icon.
We have been playing around with the Universal GUI and we find it more and more limiting that the action bar doesn't play by the rules of the screen containers. The action bar always covers the whole width of the screen and if you want a list on the left and details on the right it becomes very confusing for the user, because you end up with 2 actions bars one under the other. It shouldn't be to hard to make it follow the screen containers you define. The first screenshot only has a container for the detail and the action bar is contained by it. The second should follow the same principle, the action bar(s) should be contained by the containers they've been put in.
What I noticed when using the Universal GUI on mobile, if you press the back button that it exits the application. This is, at least for me, unexpected. I would have expected that if I press the back button, that it would go back to the previous screen (if possible). Example, I select a row in a list, go to the form to see some information. Then when I press 'back', I would like the List to be opened again so I can select a different row if desired. From my understanding the Universal GUI is a single page application but I hope there's a way to manipulate the way the back button responds.
We have a table with quite some expression fields, that normally do not give a lot of performance loss because they are usually always shown as a detail of an order. However, we've created a variant on this table that breaks with this and although I've hidden the majority of the fields, the select that is generated in the end product will still contain all these expression fields that really make things slow. Wouldn't it be a nice idea to not add expression fields to the select of a variant when they are hidden? I know I can make a seperate view, but I would like to not do that. It would be great if the selects for view/tables (based on variants) could only contain the data-elements that will be shown (non-hidden).
Hello!It would be nice and functional to be able to hide pre-filters based on the Layout-mode. In our case it is wanted to switch the pre-filters to hidden when ‘@layout_mode = Form’ and have the pre-filters visible when ‘@layout_mode = Grid’.Because when form is active it is possible to lose the current field when (accidentally) changing the pre-filters. Next to the functional part it also looks cleaner.I know it is possible in the Windows GUI to completely hide the pre-filters in Screen types but this option does not work in the Universal GUI and I would like to see to have the pre-filters visible in the Grid but not in the Form.
Currently to create mock data you can use either the mock data sets or create a preparation query (per unit test) in order to create some mock data this way.Especially with larger mock datasets it can be tedious to enter all the mock data manually.I’d like to be able to use the power of SQL to create mock data sets. Instead of creating a preparation query per unit test to create some mock data I’d like to be able to write a query that will create me some mock data. This query should be run before the current preparation query of the associated unit test.This way you will be able to re-use your mock data preparation query instead of writing them per unit test and have a more powerful option to create some mock data.
I would like to optionally immediately assign a reviewer when I set my code to ready for review using the task in the Software Factory:It feels a bit roundabout to:First have to set something to ready for review then go to code review disable the ‘hide developed by me’ prefilter find my control proc execute the task assign a reviewer
Zooming in (double click) on a detail tab page can open a different screen type (zoom) than the detail screen type. The zoom screen type can have DetailTabPage containers with different detail groups than the original screen type. Example:Screentype X (detail)Grid, Form, DetailTabPage AScreentype Y (zoom)Grid, Form, DetailTabPage A, DetailTabPage BIn our case we have detail screens with horizontal (detail group A) and vertical details (detail group B). The vertical details should be hidden when the screen is in a ‘Detail’ screen type, but must be shown when the correct detail group is available in the ‘Zoom’ screen type.At this moment all details with detail group B are placed under A.We would like to make that fallback mechanism configurable to prevent details from DetailTabPage B to be placed in DetailTabPage A.Possible solutions:Configurable per ‘Detail group’ in ‘Screen types’ screen. Configurable per reference in ‘Subjects’ screen.The default behavior should be applied when 1 or 2 is not configured.
IAM holds a tag base table and a usr_tag table. For some functionality we built it would be helpful to have Tags available for User Groups too. And while we're at it, it's probably helpful for us and/or others to have them on Applications and Tenants too. Could this be added to IAM?
hi,The current (2022.2) Print file (PDF) connector is a very static solution, can you please make the printer name an input parameter where you can assign a process variable? So then we can add printers in our solution model and let the user choose the printer to output the data.More details in this question:Thanks!
To ensure that our customers really purchase a license per user, we want to set 'max # session per account' to 1 in IAM.However, this leads to problems in our application, because we also have functionality executed for certain functions via a url call under the user name of the applicationpooluser.And we notice that it is necessary in our EVO application that the user name of the application pool user needs multiple sessions simultaneously.So here's the question of how we can achieve this...Our proposal is, for example, to make it possible to indicate at user level that it may have multiple sessions simultaneously within an application, while for that application it is set that 'max # session per account' is set to 1
At moment you have the possibility in SF to copy the filter settings from search (copy_search_to_filter). It would be nice to have an extra task to copy the filter settings from the grid or form. In that way you can easily set the order of the filter form like the grid or form fields. The visibility (visible for filter) can be derived from the grid or form type.Editable / Read only → AlwaysHidden → Never
Pretty self-explanatory, when there are no code groups generated for a specific code-group and you hit generate definition on the result tab, nothing happens and you have to go back and generate the code-group first. This is annoying and can easily be done for you.Please? :)
At the moment it is possible to show the sequence-number of process steps. You can enable this through the Settings at the Design-tab within Process flows (identical to settings at the Data model).Numbers can be good for identification, but are terrible at describing what they represent. A label would be much better at this.Alas it is currently not possible to attach a label to a process step. (Just like Reference add. for data model references). Useful labels could be something like: “on cancel", “on OK", “when already exists", "delete existing”, etc.So two additions:Being able to add labels to process steps; Being able to show labels in the process flow design.
When configuring Prefilter rights for specifics roles, there is an option named Data authorization prefilter, which determines whether a prefilter is always active and locked. I myself and other developers I have worked with, find this name a little confusing. Therefor I’am looking for a better name for this option. This topic has been created to determine whether this name might have to be changed. If so, which name is the preferred name?
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.