Topics started by Daan Heemskerk

12 Topics

D
Sidekick
Daan HeemskerkSidekick

Multiple keys to select from detail in relationshipNeeds feedback

I was just reading “filtering in a pivot grid”, and remembered that I had this Idea.If you have a list and a detail, you can select multiple items in the list, but the detail is only linked to the main focus item.I have a use case in which it would be great if you could expand this to, this key or … that key, or …, etc.With a filter it is possible to have a filter to select multiple options, but this could be less clear to the user, and the fact that it is not possible to make the filter mandatory makes that we can’t use this option. We have a large “fact table”, and I’m looking for a clear way in which a user can select some options to query, without ever selecting everything. The user should not start with everything, but with nothing. If you have a graph, and 1000 categories, you don’t want to start with “show everything”.If the graph would be a detail of a list with categories, the user could select one category and see the graph, or use the control key to select more.

6
Mark Jongeling
Administrator
18 days ago
D
Sidekick
Daan HeemskerkSidekick

A little improvement of the tsf_user() functionUnder review

I found 2 problems with the tsf_user function;If I use the function as DBA (with a direct login to the database) the function gives a guid. The function can confuse the SQL-Server query optimizer with the result that the function gets executed multiple times.As a workaround I replaced the function by a view, which checks if the CONTEXT_INFO value isn’t a GUID, and an additional check whether the user returned is actually present in our user table.I did not investigate what it would do with the performance when I made the function schema bound, but the view is much faster… and I think that making the function schema bound might give the same result. ( It would not bind to anything, but SQL-Server might understand that there is no need to evaluate the function more then once ).

7
Mark Jongeling
Administrator
18 days ago
D
Sidekick
Daan HeemskerkSidekick

Maintenance modeNeeds feedback

I think that it would be good to have a switch to put the Universal web interface in maintenance mode, and even better to be able to show messages to users that this is going to happen. 

2
Mark Jongeling
Administrator
18 days ago
D
Sidekick
Daan HeemskerkSidekick

Allow the context procedure to overrule the SF settings.Needs feedback

At this moment, if I state in the SF that a detail is not visible, the parameter to make it visible is not offered to the context procedure, and the settings in the SF database always win.This has 2 disadvantages;1) If we change the visibility in the SF and forget to recompile the context procedure, we get an error.2) If the internet is slow, or something goes wrong the user can see tabs, the user should not see. ( We have one place where we switch between 10 tabs … ).It would be nice to have 3 or 4 states; show, don’t show, or only show when the context stored procedure wants it, with “this” as default ... 4 states would be possible with one additional checkbox.This is kind of related to my previous idea, but technically requires more. User preferences can differ, and I like to build by enabling things, instead of disabling things. ( We have a row based security on top of the Thinkwise security… that is an important reason why I would like to have the possibility to only show things w

8
Mark Jongeling
Administrator
18 days ago
D
Sidekick
Daan HeemskerkSidekick

More options and defaults in model settings.Open

It would be nice, and could save a lot of time if it was possible to specify a few things in the model settings ( else it costs a lot of time clicking, or things become dirty if you forget ), and user preferences might be different;Default filter visibility for domains ( I would say Never ). Default search visibility for domains ( I would say Never ). Default column type for views ( both at model and domain level, read only except ... ) Default column type for tables ( both at model and domain level, editable except ... ).I experience the current defaults as unsafe, as things you don’t want to show, show while you did not explicitly say that you want them to. If I want something to show, I have to go there and change the field order anyway, it could save a lot of time if I would not have to go to screens where I don’t want things to show. ( I can update the domain settings with an update on the SF database, but it would be nice to have a number of additional settings at model level ). 

2
Mark Jongeling
Administrator
1 month ago
D
Sidekick
Daan HeemskerkSidekick

Regenerate table and functionalities from Tables screenMerged

At this moment, if you change the name of a table, or add a column to the table or view, you have to recreate the table/view in development. ( One way around recreating the table is to just apply the changes to a table in your SQL Server management studio, or go to the template of the view ).But, next to that you have to look for context and layout procedures, and regenerate them. If I’m making a lot of changes, I always forget one of them with the result that I have a bug, and often just look in my Inspector which call fails. It would be great if you could just do this with one button. If you change a view,  you press the button, and only if there is an error you go to the functionality.This would save a lot of mouse clicks, and sometimes searching as it is not always clear which templates are linked to a view.  

5
Mark Jongeling
Administrator
1 month ago
D
Sidekick
Daan HeemskerkSidekick

Deployment orderOpen

When I deploy an application the order of deployment is;Drop and Deploy tables Drop and Deploy constraints Drop and Deploy indexes.This order doesn’t allow to create referential constraints on unique candidate keys.This would become possible, when all required drops would be ordered separately from the creates. The constraints should be dropped before dropping the indexes, and the indexes should be created before creating the constraints.

1
Mark Jongeling
Administrator
3 months ago
D
Sidekick
Daan HeemskerkSidekick

The ability to mark tables as "not subject", or specify for what they should be used or not.Closed

If you want to build an application in traditional layers, there are things you don’t want to show as a form, some things only as lookup, for filters, etc.It would be great to be able to define that something is not for user input, and hide it from the subject list. 

4
Mark Jongeling
Administrator
7 months ago
D
Sidekick
Daan HeemskerkSidekick

Filter on datamodels in the software factoryMerged

At this moment you can create different “data models”.I would like to be able to filter on those “data models” everywhere, and that the filter would apply for all the screens where it is appropriate.At this moment a lot of time is going to finding items in lists. I think it would be great if items could be tagged by the places where they are used. The data models could easily be used as tags. They are already there.So, an option to filter on “used in datamodel”, would limit the number of subjects you see.  

3
Mark Jongeling
Administrator
9 months ago
D
Sidekick
Daan HeemskerkSidekick

Add underline and strike through to the custom layout optionsOpen

A strike through is a perfect way to show users that something has been deleted, or is discarded for another reason.

1
Mark Jongeling
Administrator
9 months ago
D
Sidekick
Daan HeemskerkSidekick

Declarative Layout logicOpen

In our application we have a attribute table in which attributes can have different types. At this moment there is a context procedure to switch between fields to display. That makes that the application is not going to work offline.If it would be possible to say “hide in the form / out of form” in the conditional layout this would not require a context procedure and could also work in offline mode. There are a lot of scenarios in which control procedures and logic would not be needed, while they are needed at this moment. ( The conditional layout is already there so this is just a small addition ).I do have another idea, to solve the same issue which I will post as a distinct idea. I note “software factory” below as it should of course work the same in all GUI’s.

5
Anne Buit
Community Manager
10 months ago
D
Sidekick
Daan HeemskerkSidekick

Add, don't show if empty option, to tabs in the screen layouts.Merged

I’m trying to solve two things,In our application we have a attribute table in which attributes can have different types. At this moment there is a context procedure to switch between fields to display. That makes that the application is not going to work offline.   Next to this we have a control procedure to hide tabs where users don’t have data to enter. For the first I added another idea but we could also solve this with this addition.Outline;I created a subject with a reference to a view. The UI understood that there was no record to show and that it wasn’t possible to add a record. Still, the UI showed the tab with an empty record. If it would be possible to choose to hide tabs with no data it is possible to do a lot of things without control procedures.Both “1” and “2” could be solved this way. For “1” this might not be the most efficient way but in case of “2” we could just delete a control procedure. With that data entry would “probably” work offline. 

6
Anne Buit
Community Manager
10 months ago

Badges

Show all badges
Terms & ConditionsCookie settings