For IFS Cloud 23R1 - Report Rule with Action "Check In To Document Managent " for Repository Type = File Storage, should work? Or is planned to implement the functionality later?
Our tests were not successfully.
Appreciate your feedback.
BR
File Storage and Report Rule with Action "Check In To Document Managent "?
Userlevel 1
+6
Hi Theo,
please see IFS Report Rule - Check In To Document Management not uploading to shared Repository | IFS Community
Report Rules will only work if using the database repository.
Best regards, Heinz
Userlevel 7
+30
That's correct. There are no plans to enhance this. For now, if you have problems with too many documents in the database, you can move them to another repository type at regular intervals.
Userlevel 1
+6
Hi Heinz, Hi Mathias,
thank you for the confirmation.
Our concern is following scenario: when a report is printed, should go to the DMS repository.
Because most our customer are using file share repository, it’s not possible to use the report rules for doing that. We have build a “customer_util.API”, and on this way we can do it. But technically spoken it’s not beauty, because the communication is directly between the database and the file share, not managed by the middle tier server.
With the new repository type “file storage”, which is full integrated in the MT Server (own pods, etc), was our hope, that due the integration in MT, will have also the functionallity with the Report Rules.
BR/Theo
Userlevel 7
+30
Our concern is following scenario: when a report is printed, should go to the DMS repository.
And you can do that, you just need to accept that the file will be stored in the database for some time (until you do your regular move to another Docman repository, which uses the File Storage backend, for example).
I cannot remember if there is an idea about this already, but in order not to forget this, you can create a new Idea under the Ideas section here on IFS Community to get support for other repository types. The reason it's not there, is that it's much harder to implement support for "external" storage then it was for database storage, because the report file is already in the database, so it's very easy to copy it to Docman's database repository.
Userlevel 7
+30
But yes, I understand if people might think that, once we have a new and shiny file storage service, that everything related to documents and files should support it. The sad truth is that it's not the case. It's a balance, of course, should we release something that works, even if it does not support every scenario, or is used by every other feature that can, something that can take years, or do we support nice and useful features one by one, trying to bring a little more value in each release? It's worth thinking about...
Reply
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.