Hi @Mathias DahlDo you know if/when the restriction in IFS Connect will be sorted? We do have some interest for it internally, are most likely not going live before 24R1 or 24R2 are released.
Hi, Fixed rental charges is not supported in the core solution. I think this is entered in the R&D product backlog as well which should be implemented in future. Another woraround for this is that you can have the regular schedule for the full month, but try to have chargeable days as 20 days for everymonth by using three paramers Chargeable Dates, Date Exceptions and Period Rounding to set the chargeable dates to 20days for each month. The Date exceptions will not be charged. This will be quite a manual work to set up the Date Exceptions to cut down the chargeable days to 20 days for each month, but doing so will not create any 13 months issue stated above. Does it help? Regards, AsankaD We have been looking into solutions like these (free days), which is taking us closer but also causing issues when rental is starting or ending of one of these dates, replacement these days etc. Being able to use “month” with built in calculations in the background is the only sound solution.
Hi @Mathias Dahl I have the same question as @nicwlk. Almost sure I’ve seen somewhere that it is possible, but not recommended for performance issues, though may mix up with something else.We have currently moved majority of documents out from DB to local shares on application server, that way we are 100% sure there are never mix up between Prod and Test environment. There are some API’s not working well with “share”, but nothing we haven’t been able to work our way around, except the file-size that is needed on occasions. Cheers, Bjørn
I know IFS RnD is working with it, and has done for a couple of days. Would be nice if they can post here with status as of now a roughly how long until they expect to be done..
Same question arises from us on App10 (seeing that on only App 9 is tagged), and probably from customers all other versions. A couple of links for those who are not aware of the issue with Spring4Shell https://spring.io/blog/2022/03/31/spring-framework-rce-early-announcementPatch finally released for Spring4Shell zero-day | IT PRO
Hi @Mathias DahlThanks for your prompt reply, as always.Yes, I’m aware we can items as customizations. Our needs are often different than what standard can cover, and changing faster and more dynamically than what is suitable for customizations, though I’m sure we could have closed some gaps.My suggestion for SQL code was not to define the EDM storage, but to chose which of the already defined to use. An option I’ve heard many asking for, and that could work great for us as well, would have been separate database(s) to store documents, so that the rest of IFS could have been backed up/copied/restored much faster.I don’t know the BPA (don’t think it’s available on App 10 that we have to use), but at first glance it seems to be a brilliant function that I look very much forward to get!Kind regards, Bjørn
Hi Bjørn, Thanks for your input. I agree on much of the above. There have not been any revolutionary changes to Docman for some time now. Still, we're tweaking it, slowly and have recently done a huge platform change where we had to rewrite our whole file handling back-end and invent that Aurena Agent thing. Not a small feat, let me tell you that. From a functional standpoint however, things are pretty much the same... I agree that the object connections are one of the strongest points that we have. And it's a generally capable DMS that supports a full spectrum of use cases, from very light use (users who only see the attachment panel) to advanced use of all sorts of crazy features we have in there. And yes, we have got quite a bit of questions about "collaboration" and how Docman can support project work with external parties. We're currently thinking if and how we could leverage MS Teams for this, in some way, and SharePoint. Another option is to extend our B2B offering in some way.
Hi @Mathias DahlI love the DocMan module in IFS, main benefit being how well it connects to all objects on so many different levels. The foundation is really strong, but still it’s losing out to other Document management systems, and are for many companies more begin used as a document storage systems instead of in projects and similar situations with many documents needing full work-flows internally/externally.It has been limited new functionality added since I started in IFS back in 2007, e.g. lacking support for external access (and simultaneous editing) in projects where the large amount of documents are coming in for many industries. Dynamic access it another example were functionality i lacking, though here it has been some development.Other automations, like attaching reports, can be set up using custom events and/or RMB options. Guess you are not surprised to hear that we have a couple of them. One example are on POCO (Purchase Order Change Order) process, to improve informatio
Thank you Mathias for the answer. Customer use this custom field to see whether the physical file is connected to ORIGINAL or VIEW record in EDM_FILE_STORAGE. Do they use the size to determine if it is an original file or a view copy? Why not look at the file type? I do believe majority of customers in Norway have this set in base profile. Both nice to see the size of file before you download (largest we have is 5,5 GB), as well as seeing there actually is a file there and not only an “empty” record. For documents with Original files you can also see if a View file exist.
Hi Bjørn, I my case I found the files only under the following locations. They were removed once the IFS Solution was applied. Thanks for your reply, Artha. Did a search on one of our servers, not even an directory “lookup” are present. @Phil Lamerton; Are there any need for us to install the patch, when JndiLookup.class isn’t present? If you can’t answer the question, should I rather create a case to support?
@Phil Lamerton Even before applying patch JndiLookup.class can only be found in directory structure under IFS_HOME\mw_home\mws\.patch_storage Does it mean the patch is not needed?Are only files directly in the 5 mentioned places* excluded (since two directories under IFS_HOME\mw_home\mws\ are further specified), or how to interpret what to exclude after search? *IFS_HOME\mw_home\mws\IFS_HOME\mw_home\mws\oracle_common\modules\thirdpartyIFS_HOME\mw_home\mws\.patch_storageIFS_HOME\wls_domain\\servers\AdminServer\uploadOld cluster.zip file Kind regards, Bjørn
Hi, This is taken from the Support platforms page (for Apps10) that I can see: I think you should be able to trust this information. Which page are you looking at where this is not visible? Perhaps I can try to point it out to someone inside IFS you show me. Kind Regards, Andreas Hi Andreas.Still only showing 2012 R2 and 2016 in customer portal.https://portal.ifsworld.com/Certification/SupportedPlatforms/10.htmKind regards,Bjørn
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your username or 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.
