With regards to a previous topic, Code review items per template | Thinkwise Community (thinkwisesoftware.com), I would like to repost this idea.The desire to have a review per template still is present. The comment suggest that it is an improvement to be able to comment the code per template, but that always has been possible with a little bit of effort by simply naming the template before you mention your comments. The real issue is that you are not able to approve or reject a single template, but you always have to reject the whole control procedure. I really would like to see a finer solution to reviewing items in the software factory. In addition to templates we would also like to be able to review expression fields, prefilters and also unit tests.
I would like to suggest an alternative approach to using expression fields.I do realise that the best idea is to try and avoid using expression fields, but still they are often very useful and, but I see that they are handled pretty poorly, performance wise.The simplest example is that I may have 2 tables in which I would like to display more than one field in one table that belongs to the other table.Now the resulting query often is something like: select t1.field1, t1.field2, (select t2.fieldX from table2 t2 where t2.key = t1.key), (select t2.fieldY from table2 t2 where t2.key = t1.key) from table1 t1I would guess that the best way to go about this is to have a query that says something like: select t1.field1, t1.field2, t2.fieldX, t2.fieldY from table1 t1 left join table2 t2 on t2.key = t1.keyCould it be possible to facilitate this by, for example, creating joins on tables much like you draw references for check integrity, look-up or show detail purposes? When a reference
We are currently using the resource scheduler to plan work orders for employees and the resource part of this scheduler shows many employees.If we switch to a month, week or day view, a combobox appears above the scheduler in which you can select one or more resources (employees), but in the timeline view this combobox disappears. The only way to filter the employees in the timeline view is by using the filter in the menu of the right mouse click and there you can use a contains or something similar. What I would like is the ability to select multiple different employees just like in the combobox that appears above the other views.More user friendly woudl be to have the resource part of the scheduler work exactly like a grid view. Where you have the filters and sort options above the column in the header. That way I can also filter on additional columns that I have visible in this part of the scheduler.Would that be possible?
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 bran
Hi,I’ve got a question about a validation message.Since the upgrade to version 2020.1 a validation message appeared which I don’t know how to interpret or solve. The validation says: ‘The cardinality of the look-up is invalid’ It has to do with the appearance of new columns in the look-up chain. I have a table called object_part_service_task, which I want to limit to entries within the table object_component_service_task, so I created a look-up with the key containing system_company_id, object_component_id and service_task_id. The column service_task_id is the look-up column. The table object_component_service_task is limited to entries within the table object_class_service_task and has a look-up relationship with the key: system_company_id, object_type_id, object_class_group_id, object_class_id and service_task_id. This last table has a relationship with the table service_task, which is the table that contains all the service_tasks’ The relationship here is with system_company_id and
There are situations in which we have a regular table containing for example all services and a linking table, linking services to for example objects. When I want to add a service to a record in a third table that already contains an object then I would like to filter on these objects and only be able to select services that are linked to that object. Now this is very easy by making this linking table the lookup table for the service. Sometimes we also use views as a lookup, where the view enables us to filter on multiple complex conditions for services to select from. Now when a service suddenly doesn't comply to these conditions and would drop out of the view then the display of the service would be empty. Afterall the service isn't present in the lookup table anymore. However I would very much like this service to still be displayed correctly. I would like to name one lookup (the view) to select a service from and one lookup (the regular table containing all services) to use as
Sometimes there are things that are linked to a variety of subjects, like relationship that are linked to objects or object_parts or contracts. Now I have a subject in which I want to use a relationship, but sometimes I would like to add a relationship that is linked to an object and sometimes I want to add a relationship that is linked to a contract. I thought I might use a variant that uses a lookup for relationship for objects in one instant and a lookup for relationships for contracts in the other instant. However the lookup of a variant cannot change and is always the same as was specified in the default. I would like to be able to assign a different lookup table to a variant.
Already have an account? Login
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.