Propose your fantastic ideas regarding the Thinkwise Platform to our Product Team.
The way extended properties have to be configured is too complicated. First find the right Extended Property in the documentation etc...Why not show all extended properties and fill them with default values at first use and show all possible options per property with a lookup?
We need to be able to open a document from a process flow, not as a new screen, but as a pop up screen.
It would be great if in the Universal GUI the breadcrums are expanded with the information from the selected level below. As shown in the screenshots, this works now in the Windows GUI.
With the TSF 2025.1 version, it has become possible to expand/collapse form tab pages in Universal. However this is currently only configurable on the subject (default expanded or not). We would like to be able to influence this from the layout procedure as well so that tab pages can be collapsed based on the data and can even become dynamically.
Since process flows can be scheduled it would be valuable to have this feature available.Especially for environments that use AzureSQL, because they don't have an Agent to schedule jobs.Personally I prefer to use Procedures for scheduled jobs, instead of tasks. I only use tasks where in case only where user interaction is applicable.
When working with process or system flows, I often want execute a specific bit of code depending on a case. Currently I either have to use system tasks (which has all sorts of issues and limitations) or use the decision step and include my code or call of a procedure in this decision step.It would be great to be able to include the call of a subroutine as a process and system flow step. Also it should be possible to use this process step as a start of a system flow.This will prevent the incorrect usage of system tasks and include code, which should have been stored in procedure, in a process procedure.To summarize, be able to include a subroutine of the type procedure in a Flow, either system or process. Also be able to map the output values of the procedure into Flow parameters.
Especially with the introduction of the actionbar component, where you can freely position the actionbar it has become more a necessity to model the action groups of the actionbar. I see the taskbar has the following main groups:Filter Pre-filter Tasks Reports CRUD actions (incl. import/export) RefreshIt's not uncommon that you have a grid, form and for example a preview/cube/ or other element not being a reference.. If you put them all on a separate tab all the component gets all the action bar items. Functionally and personally this is unwanted. the filter, pre-filter and mass update for example do not make sense on a form level (exceptions are there of course) because you are looking at a single entity. In the U-GUI we use the previewer to load external apps.. Basically you don't want to have search, filter, CRUD actions there (again exceptions are possible)It would be really great if the option to hide action bar could be extended by modelling at screentype level which action-bar items you would like to see. Example: If you put a form on a separate tab, the search /filters are most likely unwanted because it will most like likely changes your context if you (accidentally) fill something in the searchbar or activate a pre-filter. If you have, like we external components that base themselves like a form on a single entity you have the same situation.. you probably only want to see tasks/reports and a refresh button here.. Especially when you are not familiar with the concept of Thinkwise it's odd to see have search / CRUD actions here. @tiago @Yara
Introducing a hover-to-enlarge photo feature in the grid can significantly enhance the user experience and improve data density. This functionality allows users to quickly and easily view larger versions of images without needing to click or navigate away from the current page. By enabling users to see detailed images on hover, it reduces the need for additional space to display larger photos, thereby optimizing the use of screen real estate.
In IAM Models and Branches kan be cleaned up by using the delete button. If you accidently had selected a model instead of a branch, the whole model is deleted including all branches.If all groups and roles are implemented in the SF a sync could fix the mistake. If not you're left with restoring the IAM database.Today I accidently removed a model instead of a branch this way. I now depend on IT to restore the database. Luckily it was no production IAM.My idea: present the user with a popup and having him/her selecting wether to delete a model with all branches or not. If it is up to me, deleting a model that has branches shouldn't be possible at all.
Elements grid in Domains is currently not editable, which is annoying, because domains can have many elements.
At the moment, the only way translations could be added for a table variant is by setting Translate flag on in the Settings tab page of the variant:Settings tab pageIt is easier and more intuitive to do that directly from the Translations tab page of the variant:Translations tab page
Recently we started working with the different branches for development, release and main. It is desirable that in principle (with the exception of hot fixes) all developments are carried out in the development branch.Currently it is not possible to protect a branch against "accidental" mutating. Naturally, the developer should pay attention to which branch he makes adjustments in, but a mistake is easily made. And this means rolling back that branch and re-entering the work or a special merge action.Of course we can introduce the "pastry scheme" for those who accidentally do this. But it would be more useful if we could secure the branch, for example by showing a notification when the branch is opened.Is it possible to make such a adjustable warning for branches?
It regularly occurs that I can't figure out why a specific variant has been made, especially when no meaningful variant name has been used. It can be a lot of work to distinguish the differences with the table it's based on, in order to determine whether its existence is still justified.For this reason I would like to be able to execute a automatic comparison between a table variant and the table it's based on.
Creating mock data sets is the single most time consuming task when creating unit tests. Often data already exists in the project database which, after some careful adjusting, is suitable for unit tests. I would like to easily import this data into a mock data set to speed up creating unit tests.
In addition to the following topic:It would be nice to be able to weave code before the begin try so we are able to create custom scenarios in the software.(For example for logging purposes)For the same reason it would be nice to be able to weave code after the end catch.
Per request of @Vincent Doppenberg & Rene JochemWe’ve build more than a few systemflows to act like if it is a asynchronous processflow. These systemflows will do some stuff when it finds a record in a certain table, for example the recalculation of prices within an (larger) offer, which can take a while to complete due to fetching stuff like current prices from the outside world. The systemflow will scan every 5 seconds to see if there is something it can do and for a very large percentage of its lifespan it will find nothing to do. With enough applications on a server this will cause harsh spikes on them.What we were and still are looking for are asynchronous process flows, that for example are triggered by the end users push on a button (within the Windows GUI) in which the process flow will act like a systemflow does and needs no more user interaction so that the user can either log out or do something completely different with the application.rgds Ricky
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.