I leave the first part as an archive, but if you want a solution that works, keep scrolling until the end of the block:
I think I got your question... this is how I would do it:
- Add the fields to the Request and make them visible only for the role/s you want:
- Make the template Editable
- Change permissions:
- Disclaimer: That is how it should be... in my tests, the user still can Edit the Request, not sure if I am missing something or there is a bug on the system.. But you get an idea...
Answers to your questions:
- Not by default, I think it makes it harder to keep control (What if the user changes the request half way through and you don't realize until you are done?) I usually go to the database and grant access to a specific request if an analyst ask me to:
- UPDATE ServiceReq SET IsEditable = '1' WHERE ServiceReqNumber = 'CHANGE'
- We don't so, no need to check on that... but I am not sure it can be done...
- As said before, for a specific request I manually grant access, we don't have right now any request that falls under your example.
PS: Just talking about this... something came to my mind... Will be back!
Edit: I'm back!!
So, I suddenly got it, a QuickAction that allows the Analyst to make the Request "Editable" and then locks it again:
Things to keep in mind:
- You still need to make the fields only visible for the accepted roles:
- The Analyst will have to remember to run it again when they are done or the user will be able to Edit too.
Still, I think this is a good solution (Actually I am implementing it right away) as long as the analyst gets used to: Unlock Request - Edit - Lock Request.
I don't think we could use your first suggestion but I really like the idea of the quick action. I'm going to give that a go so will let you know how I get on.
P.S. I forgot to ask - what is the difference between the TemplateEditable and Editable properties?
1 of 1 people found this helpful
I actually left the first part because it was already written and didn't want to lose all that work... but the second part is the one that works for me too...
Let me know how it works for you!
About your specific question.... I have no idea! Those are OOTB fields, I tried to change only the "IsEditable" field and the system will throw an error because the "IsTemplateEditable" was false, so I made both "true".
PS: I am not going to implement it, but, if you don't trust your analyst to "close" the template again after finishing with it;
- You can create the QuickAction that only makes it editable and add a "ManuallyEdited" boolean field to it, and set it to "true" also:
- Then have a Workflow that checks for the "ManuallyEdited" field and set everything back to false after a few hours (or days or minutes, as you prefer...)
- BTW: Instead of a Workflow you can use a triggered Business Rule.
PS: I love this forum! thinking on this I just came with a solution for a different problem that I have!
We were concerned that using a qucik action to make the entire service request editable and not force it back to non-editable would be too risky so this is a great idea. I'm going to do some further testing.
It seems really restrictive that you can't just assign properties to a parameter field to allow it to be edited under certain conditions. I already have quite a list of service requests that require information to be provided by the service desk analyst that drives the workflow downstream.
I've discussed it with the team here and will be raising a feature request with Support and will also add an idea to the Community so if youwanted to vote that up that would be great.
Thank so much for your help!
You are very Welcome, glad to hear that it can work for you!
And, yes, I do not need something like you say right now, but I can see many occasions where it can be useful; maybe just having the ability to wrap several forms into a block and allow only the block as editable (then with the "Visibility" option you make it available only for the specified roles/teams/people). Count with my vote when I see your proposal!
I've added the idea and also logged a feature request so hopefully if enough people back it, it might be changed.