Skip to main content

Product updates
Ideas
Events
E-learning
Documentation
TCP

Create a new topic
Login

Ideas

Propose your fantastic ideas regarding the Thinkwise Platform to our Product Team.

Featured Topics

F.A.Q.

What happens to your ideas?

Your input is very valuable to us. That is why you can share your ideas for improving the Thinkwise Platform. (Last updated: november 2024)Tip 💡Don't...

7 years ago

10501

Idea pipeline (top 25)

Filter by idea status

Filter by product

2004 Ideas

Most replies

Most votes

Newest first

Back to top of the list

K.BakkenesCaptain

Code review items per templateCompleted

Currently the ‘Code reviews’ screen shows code reviews per control procedure. Templates within a control procedure can be changed by different developers. We would like to see every control procedure template as an individual code review item. This would allow a reviewer to approve or disapprove a single template. This will also allow you to see at a glance which templates must be reviewed without having to look in the tabpage 'Changes’.

ThijeThinkwiser

Select a default project versionCompleted

When the sequence number of the runtime configuration isn’t filled and the project version isn’t defined during the development, the ‘last’ project version should be selected instead of the oldest (change the order of the project version).

On copying a table/view add a Checklist of what to copyCompleted

When copying a table or a view a lot of things are copied with it, some wanted some unwanted. When copying a view the old template is assigned to the new view, in most cases I do not want this to happen. Same goes for tasks, when copying a table more often than not I do not want the tasks assigned to the new table. To make the copying more user friendly (and to give some insight of what it is actually copying) i would like a checklist with objects it is going to copy with the option to deactivate some. This way I would know copying a view also copies the tasks, table parameters, assign the template and copy the filters.

K.BakkenesCaptain

Undo approval of a control procedureCompleted

From the screen ‘Code reviews’ it’s possible to approve and disapprove control procedures. When we accidentally set a control procedure ‘Approved’ there’s no way to undo it because the ‘Approve’ and ‘Disapprove’ tasks are disabled. It would be a nice feature to be able to ‘Disapprove’ an already approved control procedure.

MaartenThinkwiser

Process action output - labels above fieldsCompleted

In the processflow action edit row we have two columns. Which is different from most process actions.As a reminder for the developer i would like to see a little name or indication which tells me which column is which. I think this is simply achievable by putting a group name above the columns with old and new values, or something like that.process action: edit row

Robert Jan de NieThinkwise blogger

Show more information during 'Generate source code' stepCompleted

However the source code generation step has never failed me, I sometimes wonder if it is doing something. I’d like to have a more verbose output of what it is actually doing and at what step the generation process is.Currently we only see this and just have to wait:It would be nice if we are able to see the smaller steps that are happening inside a specific step. The advantage is two-fold. It keeps you up to date and makes it visible if there are any steps that are running slowly.

PDF merge possibilityCompleted

We would like to have the possibilty to merge pdf files. We generate the reporst and pdf with devexpres. Devexpress itself has functionality (api) to merge pfd's.

Roy van UffelenCaptain

Dealing with templates within code reviewCompleted

By setting a different background color for templates that are in a certain state it will make it easier to focus only on those templates that need it.For instance think about templates that need some fixing, have or haven't changed since last review, have been reviewed and wait response of developer, alongside prefilters to make you focus on one or the other.This not only within the Review code section, but also within the Functionality (Control procedure and templates).

if exists Alter procedure on functionality executeCompleted

During development (especially during the user test) you sometimes have to make quick changes to functionality. However executing the code from the functionality - result screen will do a drop and create, messing up any rights set to the procedure. It would be very helpful if instead the code did a if exists alter , if not exists create. Since this is probably not wanted since some people use the result screen to edit their code I would also be happy if there was a second button (generate as alter procedure). This way any rights set to the object will remain intact. This would save a lot of time during user tests and would decrease the change of errors due to overwriting the current procedure.

Maurice LiebregtThinkwise blogger

Formalize translator role in SF suiteCompleted

Importing/adding translations and validating translations are tasks that are sometimes attributed to specific persons in the project team that are not developers. This is especially likely to happen when a high number of languages and/or more exotic languages are to be supported.To better support this scenario a formalized translator user group (and underlying roles) in the Software Factory would be beneficial. Users that are part of such a group should have access to the “Translations” menu item and the tasks to generate and translate translation objects and the possibility to import/export translations without having the possibility to change the data-/gui model and functionality.

Dennis van LeeuwenHero

Improvement SF validation "Domain is not in use"Completed

The SF came up with the validation message "Domain is not used". After deleting the domain I found out that some functionalities were giving an error message because the domain was using in a declare. To have the validation perform a code search on the domain name is probably very difficult (because a domain name in a code template can be anything) but feel free to make it so if possible. I would at least suggest that the validation Description, Consequence or Solution text be expanded to alert a developer that performing a code search on this domain name is a required action before deleting the domain. The developer can then determine to keep the domain or to replace the declared domain with another domain or data type.

BrechtvGilsRookie

Unit tests with @error_msgCompleted

Unit tests are great way to test API's however, our API's have the declared parameter @error_msg. Because this is the same parameter as declared in the unit test code all of our API's get the same failed message for their unit test: This is probably a more common problem, because @error_msg is a widely used parameter. Can this parameter be changed to a more uncommon one, specific for unit testing probably?

efitskieSidekick

Add Azure blob storage as file storageCompleted

We use the Azure Blob storage a lot. The blob storage is also less expensive as the current supported Azure File storagePlease add this to the list of supported file storage's in the Software Factory.

BramGWarrior

Include upgrade scripts assigned to version when between upgrade from/to versionCompleted

At this moment, when you upgrade an accept environment from version 1.61 to 1.66 for example, upgrade scripts that are linked to a specific version between version 1.61 and 1.66 are not included. I think the upgrade scripts that are linked to version 1.64 for example, should be included in the upgrade from 1.61 to 1.66 as well. This could be accomplished by assigining the control procedure to after_upgrade_always, but this means that you need to unassign the control procedure after the upgrade, especially when you are using the control procedure template to migrate/convert data from the old structure to a new structure for example.This is also not the ideal situation when you’re reaching for automatic deployment with an azure pipeline for example.

Jeroen van den BeltAdministrator

Make it optional to include inactive control procedures when performing a code searchCompleted

When searching for code in the screen 'Code search', inactive control procedures (and their templates) are always included. Most of the times, however, I want to search/analyze impact in active control procedures because they have an actual effect on your end product. Results for inactive control procedures then only distract me.I propose to add a new checkbox to this screen, making this an optional feature: "Extend search to inactive control procedures". This checkbox should be empty by default, in my opinion.

IAM: better handling of user group default begin on periodCompleted

Currently when adding a user group to a user in IAM the begins on is set based on the begins on of the user. When the begins on period lies in the future this makes sense. When the begins on lies in the past this is incorrect. I want to be able to see when the group was added to correctly trouble shoot rights issues. I would suggest this logic: if begins on >= getdate()then begins onelse getdate()

Password reset/forgot via link instead of Token in the emailCompleted

Wouldn’t it be nice to send a link via email to allow for password Reset instead of a token. Additionally for the IAM operator to be able to set a template for the Reset password email that will be send to the user.Scenario:User presses the forgot password. Receives an email, provided the email or username entered exists under an IAM user. The User upon pressing the link it is redirected to Reset password page The User enters only new password and verifies password, provided it meets strength and complexity.Cons: We avoid the sending of tokens and the User needing to copy/paste or memorize it to enter it in the existing reset password.Pros: The Reset password becomes simpler, as the token can be already enbedded in the link send in the email.

Multiple open projects and how to handle themCompleted

In the SF it is possible to open multiple projects or project versions. For example you can open functionality for version 1.00 and version 1.10 of your branch. However you are able to edit both. Sometimes if you need to check something with older versions/different branches this can become very confusing and there is the risk of editing the wrong branch or project.Multiple ideas: Do not switch the active project upon switching tabs Add some kind of colour (red) or a warning sign (red exclamation mark) to show the current tab is not part of the active project Make any tab that is not the active project read-only. Make it possible to switch all opened tabs to the latest version, with the click of a button

Indicator for added functionality in the process flow design screenCompleted

Looking at the process flow design screen you have no clue if a process action has added functionality. To make the design screen easier to read it would be really helpful to add some indicator that functionality is added to a process action. Either changing the colour of the action step or add an indicator to it.

K.BakkenesCaptain

Validate field input value without using a default/layout/triggerCompleted

If we want to check a field on a valid input value (and prevent saving) we need to create a default, a layout and a trigger procedure.We regularly use a combination of a default + trigger because the user will see an error message as early as possible and the trigger would prevent the insert the record.The default will validate the field after leaving it (@cursor_from_col_id) and return an error message. The trigger will also validate the field with the same code (but with the inserted of course).There’s a problem with this combination when a user fills in the field and saves the form without leaving the field first. In this case the error message (see screenshot below) will be shown twice. Once for the default and once for the trigger. A solution could be to add a layout procedure that also validates the field with (again) the same code. The layout procedure could disable the save button when it determines that the field value is incorrect. But this result in a default, layout and a trigger with the same validation check. Not exactly low code.What if the TSF offers a field validation option? A screen to create one or multiple validations per field. It could range from simple checks like: field is empty, field value must be unequal to 0 or the option the add a query. We could also add a desired result to a configured field validation like showing an error message or placing a conditional layout.These new field validations need to be executed in the GUI before saving/inserting a record and could act as a default because the validation is linked to a field. They can also be used for dynamically creating the validation within triggers.

Arie VCommunity Manager

Distinguish Simulated User from actually Logged in UserCompleted

We appreciate having the Simulate User functionality available in Indicium/Universal GUI nowadays! It is a quick and easy way to reproduce issues our end users encounter. There is however one thing we noticed, which to us is a risk in terms of logging. It should always be clear that it is a Simulation done by another User. Therefore I believe the tsf_usr functionality should always retrieve the originally logged in User. Due to the fact that that is currently not happening, our Trace field logic (based on this ThinkStore article https://community.thinkwisesoftware.com/user-interface-88/trace-your-changes-by-adding-trace-fields-1107) actually registers the Simulated User as Insert/Update user, instead of the originally logged in user. This is a risk, since we use these Trace fields (icm with system-versioning on certain tables) to be able to see who did what and when.As per suggestion from @Vincent Doppenberg: Could a separate function be introduced for the Simulated User?

Mark JongelingSoftware Architect

Making a Module branch from Trunk projectCompleted

I work on a huge project for a client and the data model contains 1200+ subjects. Every branch we make works on other subjects, for example a Project branch works on Project related subjects and the CRM branch works on the CRM subjects. These branches currently both have the same subjects (1200+) and this makes the branch (data model) pretty big. What would be great to have is that we could define a Module; or a part of the data model specific for that branch. Probably the CRM module doesn't need all 1200+ subjects but only needs around 300 or so. If that Module would only have in it those 300 subjects needed to develop the CRM, then it would save a lot of space, time and most importantly synchronization time (syncing to IAM). What do you think about this Community? Would love to hear more about this.

Mark van BenthemSidekick

Multiple instances of the TSF databaseCompleted

We are running a development platform with about 30 developers and thus we are often bothered with a slow working SF, which primarily happens when someone is either generating definitions,validating definitions or executing a merge. But it also can happen sometimes just by trying to save a template or a new table column.The root cause of this, in my opinion, is the fact that all of our transactions within the SF are executed on one single SF database. Especially during generation or merging a lot of data is being read, deleted or created in that single database, which often results in a slow performance or even processes being assigned as deadlock victim.I believe the performance of the SF could largely be improved if we were able to run multiple instances of the SF database, maybe even across multiple database servers, and be able to merge branches from different databases. A couple of great benefits are:Whenever I work in a branch I am only bothering people that work in the same branch as I do or at least people that work in the same SF database that I do. It greatly improves scalability, especially when it supports multiple database serversEspecially the first benefit is great for a performance improvement.With about 30 people developing there are several merges happening in a week. Consider the trunk to have it’s own SF-database and executing a merge to the trunk. This merge will then primarily lock access to the SF-database that belongs to the trunk and not slow down performance of the other 29 developers still developing in their own branches.

Mark JongelingSoftware Architect

Making the 'Refresh model' task also get the latest project versionCompleted

Currently if I open the application (directly to the SF) it'll open with the given project version. In my case I put in 'null' so it will open the latest development version. When I do an upgrade in the Software Factory and then make a new project version, I have to close my application to open the same application again, just to change the project version of the application. What I would like as developer is that when I press the 'Refresh model' task (only available to developers) that the GUI (application) will look if there's a newer development version available. Then if so, that it will give me a message saying if I would like to instead switch my application project version to the newer project version; a simple yes/no would do the trick. That would mean I don't have to close my application anymore and it is always running the latest project version. It will ensure I'm never making changes in a wrong version because I didn't notice that the project version I'm working in (in the SF) is not the same version (in the application) I'm looking at. Side note: When a new project version is made and the old one has been made 'Inactive', the GUI will actually freeze upon refreshing the model

PeterKeerisCaptain

Incremental upgrade packageOpen

When maintaining multiple instances of one application (for different companies), the value of automating the upgrade proces increases but it also becomes more complexe, especially if there are many different project versions within the project. With the current possibilities of the Software Factory it is a pain to create an upgrade package of a cumulative upgrade (multiple versions). The only proper way is to create an incremental upgrade script for each version to the next version so the dataconversion is always applied at right state of the model (as was stated here). But to create suchs a package, you need to generate all code for each version one by one and then you can combine all the 020 scripts (because for the other code files you only need the ones of the latest version). To make this process more simple and to reduce manual steps, an improvement could be that when generating code from version 1.00 to version 1.30, you could mark an 'incremental upgrade' checkbox so that the SF generates multiple (smart) 020 scripts (1.00->1.10, 1.10->1.20 and 1.20->1.30) instead of 1.00->1.30.

Filter by product

All products
Community
Deployment Center
Documentation
Indicium Service Tier
Intelligent Application Manager
Mobile GUI
Software Factory
Thinkstore
UI/UX
Universal UI
Upcycler
Windows GUI
Testwise

Powered by Gainsight

Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement

Sign up

Already have an account? Login

Login

Login to the Thinkwise Software Community

Login

Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.

Enter your email address

Back to overview