Do you have an example how I can access the attachments of other document revisions?Give the above a try and let us know how it worked out for you. Perhaps you will be surprised? Or I will be... 😃
It's time to update your understanding I think, by reading the documentation 😃Look here:http://docweb.corpnet.ifsworld.com/ifsdoc/Apps10/documentation/en/CreateAndMaintainDocument/AboutDocumentMacro.htm?StandAlone=trueSearch for "The Following Macro block can be used to retrieve macro attributes relevant to copy document file process" and you will find an example macro for the COPYFILETO process.Try it out and let us know how it works.
Thanks for helping out @heibde ! 💪🏻 But both will not help for your requirement as macros will always work on one document revision.That's actually not true in all cases 😃 As I remember it, we support macros even for an operation like Copy Files To... So, in theory you could define a macro for that operation (or process, as it is called in that basic data), and try to use code in the macro itself or some tool to merge the downloaded files into one. I admit it would be quite a bit of a hack to do so, but it might be worth trying out.Even if such a macro cannot be done (the devil is in the detail...), another semi-automatic option is to download all files to disk, then run some script/tool/whatever on them.But there is no built-in feature for doing this, no.
Thanks for sharing, I found a lot of interesting information here. A really good post, very thankful and helpful that you will write many more posts like this one. Thanks for the kind words 😃 ❤️ Our documentation is a gold mine and, I think, undervalued. There's so much good content in there if you just look for it. And, I would say it's even a bug in the documentation if there is something in IFS you cannot learn about by reading it. Of course, it takes a little bit of practice in how to search and navigate. But, yeah... Good stuff!
No worries, moved it for you
Which Excel Add-In is this about? Also, I think you might have posted in the wrong forum. This is about asset management.
Access was ok with the object security/link to Work task. Issue was the status. Thanks for reporting back here!But we do need to find a way to share documents in non released status. Not saying it would be wrong, but can you explain why? What's good with keeping documents that you share with others in Released state is that everyone know they got the latest and final version of that revision. And this should go both ways. If new updates are needed from either party, creating a new revision is not expensive.
Hi,Thanks for asking here.This is partly handled in our B2B Contracting workflow. You can read about what is available there in our documentation about document access (search for "contract"):http://docweb.corpnet.ifsworld.com/ifsdoc/Apps10/documentation/en/CreateAndMaintainDocument/AboutDocumentAccess.htm?StandAlone=trueReading that myself now, the way it's written suggests that this might only work if the document is connected to the work order.My guess is that, by default, the contractor would only get view access through the work order. If they also need edit access, this can be handled with "classic" document access (connected to the person or person group).
You can of course look into doing a customization, allowing creating fault reports also for polygon layers. This might or might not work depending on the reason we decided not to support it...
Fix layer to support point based interaction (we’ll try that first) If I understand correctly what you mean, that will not work. You tried to create a fault report on a polygon layer, and the error says that feature only work for point layers. I assume you don't want to change the layer into a point layer...
One workaround is to create the fault report/work order as usual, then connect the GIS object with the new WO.
@Anders Jansson The error tells us that, for some reason that I cannot remember (some technical limitation or problem hard to work around, or simply lack of time), the operation you are trying to use only supports point-based feature layers.I suspect you try to create a fault report from the map, am I right?
@ADAHU Ok and what is the recommended way? 🤔There is none, I’m afraid, for your use case. And that is how it is for many use cases.In general, the official way to get files in and out of Docman is via our middle tier and the APIs we have there.Some details are documented here:https://docs.ifs.com/techdocs/Foundation1/050_development/060_ifs_applications_business_components/110_DOCMAN_Development/010_ifs_file_transfer_service/default.htm
@Andre Martin Some people have been able to use different methods in Batch_Transfer_Handler_API to get files from Shared and FTP repositories in order to do hacks like this. I don't recommend using that API since it's not meant for anything else than R&DO-provided functionality and we don't guarantee it's use for anything else than what "we" use it for ourselves (which is transferring files between document repositories). That doesn't stop people from using it though 😃 But it's on their own risk.
Moved to Framework section.
I cannot say what is wrong more than that, when you get “Entity instance not found”, it means the record you have specified does not exist.For that hack to work, the documents needs to be stored in the database. Do you keep them there?
Good to hear it's progressing! 😃As for the problem, you can only use the &-syntax for variables you set up in the custom event definition. So, to take an example, for the variable var_activity_seq you should just use it as it is without anything around it.So, instead of this:Doc_Reference_Object_API.Create_New_Reference(''&NEW:DOC_CLASS'', ''&NEW:DOC_NO'', ''&NEW:DOC_SHEET'', ''&NEW:DOC_REV'', ''Activity'' , CONCAT(CONCAT(''ACTIVITY_SEQ='',''&VAR_ACTIVITY_SEQ''),''^'') , null , ''001'');You should use this:Doc_Reference_Object_API.Create_New_Reference(''&NEW:DOC_CLASS'', ''&NEW:DOC_NO'', ''&NEW:DOC_SHEET'', ''&NEW:DOC_REV'', ''Activity'' , CONCAT(CONCAT(''ACTIVITY_SEQ='',var_activity_seq),''^'') , null , ''001'');Or even this (I think it's easier to not use the CONCAT function and use the concatenation operator || instead):Doc_Reference_Object_API.Create_New_Reference(''&NEW:DOC_CLASS'', ''&NEW:DOC_NO'', ''&NEW:DOC_SHEET'', ''&NE
@ShawnBerk This entire landscape changes for us in Cloud, so I’ll have to rethink everything in this regard it seems.IFS Cloud is for sure a big change to many upgrading customers. But you can sleep better knowing that the access concept in Docman is the same 🙂
@ShawnBerk Yes, this is right, and I bet if you think about the poor position we’re starting from with the hybrid CRM/APPs setup, I’m sure it is not a scenario that would be considered. Nor am I saying it really should be. Likewise, I’ll not be as frustrated with what doesn’t work for us now that I better understand the design intent. I just have to find a way to work within the confines it presents (which we do right now), but as I said, I’ll want to take the opportunity to redo it in Cloud.It doesn't need to be a bad thing to have a few scripts or background jobs or whatever that runs now and then, to tweak the system to work exactly like you want it to. You're only doing automatically what you could have done manually. So no harm. It would be good of course if the existing business logic supported what you wanted to do/your way of working, but at some point we have to accept that it's not always the case.From some of what you have written I have been thinking to myself: why not j
@ShawnBerk The entire time we were in V8, that is how it worked and worked fine for us. Then when V9 came along (we moved APPs up, but not SAM), that loophole was closedI wonder what loop hole that might be. The current access concept, including object-controlled document access, has been the same since Apps 8. We might have fixed bugs, of course, and possibly one of those affected you. Do you know what it was or was it what you already mentioned you reported via that case? If the latter, then that behavior should have been there from Apps 8 even.
Hi @Mathias Dahl, I didn’t have time to check the recording yet, but your instructions were good enough. So I tried with postman and first created the virtual (CreateReceipSet) and got the objkey. Then used that objkey to do the actual command which does the receipt (CreateArrivalReceipt). I ignored the parts in between. It worked and was actually quite simple to do. Thanks a lot again and I actually think quite many operations in IFS seems to be using these virtuals, so this will helpful in the future as well. Thanks for reporting back, I’m glad you found it useful and hope others will too 😀💪🏻
@ilarirossi Were you able to access the recording? Also, did the explanations above help?
@ShawnBerk However, when a user that is in a more limited person group than the global one initially creates the document as part of another object (opportunity for example) and then the same document is later connected to the customer order, only the user that made the connection has access to the documentThere is no such rule that explicitly only grants access to the person who connects a document to an object.When a document is connected to an object that has been enabled for controlling document access, a check is made: is the user who does the connection one of the admins of the document? If they are, then the "default object access level" is applied to the object-access line that is added under Access when the connection is made. If they are not an admin, then the access levels will be set to "empty". Again, this is to protect abusing the object-controlled document access concept....and all of the other users in the customer order side group can’t see it because the object doesn’
PS. It might not be practical if this needs to happen a lot, but it’s not hard for any of the admins of a document to change the maximum access level granted from the customer order. Is this what the script is doing?
What exactly are the scripts doing? They are directly working around a change that was introduced with V9 that we considered a bug and were told would require a MOD to fix. We didn’t bite on doing the MOD instead created an hourly script to keep documents visible to all users on the most prolific object - Customer Order. Details on the problem and MOD proposal are in G1966162. Found the case. Here is the description:Symptom: One user creates a document revision and the object connection - all works fine. If one user creates the revision but another creates the object connection, the access for the object isn't set correctly.Consequence/Value: Some users cannot access documents attached to the Customer Order when their access right is inherited only from the object connection.Funny, that is what I mentioned in my recent reply: a user who is not an admin of a document should not be able to grant access to other users by connecting the document to an object that can control the
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your 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.
