PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 05/14/2015 4:08 PM by  Woozy
IPA/Landmark - pass UA info to Action Form?
 6 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
Woozy
Private
Private
Veteran Member
(3469 points)
Veteran Member
Posts:701


Send Message:

--
04/06/2015 11:28 AM

    Hi All,

    We are working on a fairly complex custom ActionRequest process.  As part of this process, we'd like to modify the ActionRequest form so that different approvers see different fields on the form based on the particular UserAction node that the request was generated from.  For example, maybe an action has a section for Comp update/approval, HR update/approval, and Finance update/approval.  We want the Form to show only the fields that require review/update for that specific type of approval, etc.  

    Note that the assignments are by actor rather than task within the flow logic, and the approvers may have rights that would generally allow them to update any of the fields.

    Is there a way to mark the different UA nodes as a specific "type" of UA, and then reference that in the ActionForm LPL code (similar to the "actor.final approver" logic)?

    Thanks!

    Kelly

    Kelly Meade
    J. R. Simplot Company
    Boise, ID
    Tim Cochrane
    Private
    Private
    Veteran Member
    (450 points)
    Veteran Member
    Posts:154


    Send Message:

    --
    04/07/2015 8:02 AM
    Kelly - This is a good one...
    Could you use the standard UA, where each UA has different IDs (ex: Comp, HR, Finance), then either reference those IDs in the LPL OR have different custom...sorry, meant CONFIGURED Action Request forms that only display specific areas of the main AR form...OR (worst case) have different custom Inbaskets that mimic the different sections of the AR (similar to a Design Studio concept)?

    PeterO took a long weekend off and will be in tomorrow, i'm sure he'll have some ideas on this too.
    Tim Cochrane - Principal LM/IPA Consultant
    Woozy
    Private
    Private
    Veteran Member
    (3469 points)
    Veteran Member
    Posts:701


    Send Message:

    --
    04/07/2015 9:43 AM
    Thanks Tim.

    Your first comment is what I would like to do - but I don't know how to "reference" them in the LPL. There are fields on the "display" tab which could possibly be used for this, but I don't know how I'd use them.

    If that doesn't work, then I guess the next option is to do separate forms, and call them directly within the UA. That would be my distant 2nd choice.

    Using different inbaskets would be in last place by a longshot. We really don't want to mess with different inbaskets for this one flow. Ick.

    Hopefully someone else will pipe in with some other ideas or suggestions.

    Thanks! Kelly
    Kelly Meade
    J. R. Simplot Company
    Boise, ID
    Peter O
    Systems Analyst
    Independent
    Veteran Member
    (205 points)
    Veteran Member
    Posts:69


    Send Message:

    --
    04/08/2015 9:31 AM
    Ok... I don't believe you can directly reference the UA node from config console LPL. That being said.. you might be able to do some interesting Config Console trickery combined with some IPA mods to get a similar effect.
    Here's how it would work in my head:
    1. Add 3 (or however many you need) hidden boolean or conditional fields to the form
    2. The fields that you want to be conditionally visible will need to take their clue from the hidden boolean fields (using "visibile when" or "valid when" conditions)
    3. In the process flow - Modify the ActionRequest in process based on the UA node to activate one of the conditional fields on the form.

    So, when the flow goes to the Comp UA node, the "Comp?" boolean field will be switched to "true" in the process flow. Then the person viewing the form next (or prior, depending on how you set it up) will only see the fields that are "visible when" that boolean is true....

    I know it will be a headache to keep track of the conditions... but this is the only way off the top of my head that I think you'd get an effect similar to what you want.

    Let me know if that makes sense.
    ~Peter


    Woozy
    Private
    Private
    Veteran Member
    (3469 points)
    Veteran Member
    Posts:701


    Send Message:

    --
    04/09/2015 9:21 AM
    Thanks Peter. That is an interesting idea, though it makes me a little nervous. I think maybe calling a separate custom form for each UA may make more sense in our case- but that may not work either. If it doesn't work, then I may decide to try your approach.

    Thanks for the thought!

    Kelly
    Kelly Meade
    J. R. Simplot Company
    Boise, ID
    Peter O
    Systems Analyst
    Independent
    Veteran Member
    (205 points)
    Veteran Member
    Posts:69


    Send Message:

    --
    05/14/2015 2:36 PM

    Hey Kelly,

     

    Did you guys get something to work with this? I'm really curious as to what you pursued.

     

    Thanks!

    Peter

    Woozy
    Private
    Private
    Veteran Member
    (3469 points)
    Veteran Member
    Posts:701


    Send Message:

    --
    05/14/2015 4:08 PM
    Hi Peter,

    We haven't done anything yet because I've been working on other priorities - primarily our TM11 upgrade. However, I actually started looking into this again this week. I think we're going to explore your suggestion. I should know more in a couple of weeks.

    Kelly
    Kelly Meade
    J. R. Simplot Company
    Boise, ID
    You are not authorized to post a reply.