Skip to main content
Solved

Hierarchical custom LoVs in IFS Cloud


Alexander Heinze
Superhero (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+23

Question to the configuration and framework gurus: Is it possible to configure hierarchical LoVs using custom fields? We often see this use case in failure trees, where up to 5 fields are populated to categorize a problem (and potentially present suggested solutions).

For example, in Field1 you can choose 1, 2, 3. When you select 1, Field2 offers 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. When you select 1.3, Field3 offers 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, etc. You get the idea. 😁

In Structured Failure Management we have a 3-level tree, so somehow it seems to be possible, but ideally I’m looking for a solution that works in Page Designer.

Appreciate your help.

Best answer by Alexander Heinze

I have extended this sample to 5 levels.

 

The attached Word document includes the ACP plus instructions. The sample was built on the Request entity in 24.2.0 and I also imported it successfully into 24.1.4.

View original
Did this topic help you find an answer to your question?

15 replies

Marcel.Ausan
Ultimate Hero (Partner)
Forum|alt.badge.img+22
  • Ultimate Hero (Partner)
  • 1142 replies
  • December 5, 2024

@Alexander Heinze I’m afraid what you’re asking for is not possible through config.

See the below post that goes in the same direction.

 


Forum|alt.badge.img+9
  • Hero (Employee)
  • 91 replies
  • December 6, 2024

Hi, 

The issue here is that you cannot add a filter when defining a custom attribute of the reference type. However, the client configuration concepts that have been introduced might be of interest.

Conditional LOV Filter
For more information, refer to the Conditional LOV Filter documentation.

Conditional Enumeration Filters
For further details, see the Conditional Enumeration Filters documentation.

 

 

Kind regards

Tobias Furberg


Alexander Heinze
Superhero (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+23
  • Author
  • Superhero (Employee)
  • 878 replies
  • December 6, 2024
tofuse wrote:

Hi, 

The issue here is that you cannot add a filter when defining a custom attribute of the reference type. However, the client configuration concepts that have been introduced might be of interest.

Conditional LOV Filter
For more information, refer to the Conditional LOV Filter documentation.

Conditional Enumeration Filters
For further details, see the Conditional Enumeration Filters documentation.

 

 

Kind regards

Tobias Furberg

That’s exactly what I’m playing with at the moment! 😁


Forum|alt.badge.img+9
  • Hero (Employee)
  • 91 replies
  • December 6, 2024

As I got the question from the side I just want to clarify. When I wrote 

“you cannot add a filter when defining a custom attribute of the reference type”

What I meant is that when you define your custom attribute as a reference. You select the view that you want to reference and then what attributes to display to the user. Here, you can not specify that you want to filter the list of values. I’m not saying that a custom reference attribute can not be filtered in the client. 

Conditional LOV filters can be applied to any reference (LOV) attribute, standard or custom, in the client. 


Alexander Heinze
Superhero (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+23
  • Author
  • Superhero (Employee)
  • 878 replies
  • December 6, 2024

With help from ​@tofuse I managed to achieve exactly what I was looking for. Solely using Page Designer! 😁

 

 

@Marcel.Ausan , ​@Rukmal Fernando fyi.


Alexander Heinze
Superhero (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+23
  • Author
  • Superhero (Employee)
  • 878 replies
  • Answer
  • December 9, 2024

I have extended this sample to 5 levels.

 

The attached Word document includes the ACP plus instructions. The sample was built on the Request entity in 24.2.0 and I also imported it successfully into 24.1.4.


dsj
Superhero (Partner)
Forum|alt.badge.img+22
  • Superhero (Partner)
  • 835 replies
  • December 9, 2024

Looks like I’m late for the party 😎

Nice job ​@Alexander Heinze

I’m curious to know how you managed to solve it. As I last checked in 23R1 , conditional enumeration filters doesn’t accept dynamic values as filter conditions. has this been changed in 24R1?

 

However I managed to solve it using Datasource Aggregate Refs as described in this topic.

Adding a dynamic filter to LOV Custom Field in 23R1 | IFS Community

 

Cheers!

Damith


Alexander Heinze
Superhero (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+23
  • Author
  • Superhero (Employee)
  • 878 replies
  • December 9, 2024
dsj wrote:

Looks like I’m late for the party 😎

Nice job ​@Alexander Heinze

I’m curious to know how you managed to solve it. As I last checked in 23R1 , conditional enumeration filters doesn’t accept dynamic values as filter conditions. has this been changed in 24R1?

 

However I managed to solve it using Datasource Aggregate Refs as described in this topic.

Adding a dynamic filter to LOV Custom Field in 23R1 | IFS Community

 

Cheers!

Damith

This one uses a filter on a reference field, not an enumeration. Cannot remember though when this kind of filter was introduced.


Forum|alt.badge.img+6

@Alexander Heinze
Thanks for sharing ACP. Very useful! 


Forum|alt.badge.img+1
  • Do Gooder (Employee)
  • 1 reply
  • February 25, 2025

@Alexander Heinze you only uploaded the word doc, without the ACP.


Forum|alt.badge.img+6

I can see ACP inside word doc :)

 

 


Alexander Heinze
Superhero (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+23

If you wonder how LOV2 gets emptied when you select a new value in LOV1…

The entity that I pick from has a field NULL_VALUE.

When you pick into LOV1, LOV2..5 get updated with NULL.

 

@rkescoupland FYI.


thank you for that insight on clearing! 


Forum|alt.badge.img+12
  • Hero (Customer)
  • 260 replies
  • March 21, 2025
Alexander Heinze wrote:

If you wonder how LOV2 gets emptied when you select a new value in LOV1…

The entity that I pick from has a field NULL_VALUE.

When you pick into LOV1, LOV2..5 get updated with NULL.

 

@rkescoupland FYI.

 

 

That’s really cool ​@Alexander Heinze thanks for sharing.


unfortunately - it did not work in my case - i assume because my lov are separate - but i can see it is a neat way to solve this issue in many scenarios. thanks for sharing😀


Reply


Cookie policy

We use cookies to enhance and personalize your experience. If you accept you agree to our full cookie policy. Learn more about our cookies.

 
Cookie settings