I have seen an example of how the shortcut for the web client can include a windows authentication login to automatically log that person in. It would be useful to have a way to push the credentials of a local vault account through the Web client log in process.
A customer who must plan for disaster recovery scenarios would like the ability to restore the primary Vault Database and Filestore from a replicated Database and Filestore. If it is not possible to do this now might the capability be added in a future release?
Can you improve wording of error messaging in order to be understandable by people who haven't code this thing...
currently we have this kind of thing (jobprocessor error):
"Index (zero based) must be greater than or equal to zero and less than the size of the argument list"
Clear, isn't it ?
if we have for any reason, a dwf visualisation file that exists on the vault server that is no longer associated with a file then it needs to be deleted before the inventor / cad file is able to achieve a new "update view" task successfully. (we see the error "visualisation file cannot be created due to vaulting restrictions = non - unique visualisation file" )
the next thing then we need to do is go and delete this redundant vis file, and then go back and send the update view again.
i wonder whether it can be arranged to have a command such as "update view" with an additional choice for a user to select "delete redundant visualisation files / duplicates no longer attached" as part of the one process.
the ability to run mass delete tasks on certain visualisation files is limited to specific cases which make it time consuming to clean up the redundant files that cannot be found easily.
the idea for improved or extended functionality would be a big time saver to say the least.
thanks for your consideration.
i think that there is an opportunity to improve the functionality of "manage ownership" tools, when in a replicated environment.
for example, i am in the process of deleting a dwf file that is associated / linked to an inventor file. i see that during the delete process, that i cannot complete the task because of error (something like) "cannot complete task ownership is not assigned to your workgroup".
now, we stop what we were doing, navigate to the file location (if you are not working in the folder eg working from a search result folder). take ownership of the file, or in my case, the folder that the file resides in. then navigate back to the original task (run an advanced search for particular file and resume the delete process.
idea: allow "manage ownership" functionality from within the context of the original scenario. eg, i see the task "cannot be completed due to vaulting restrictions / ownership is not currently assigned to your workgroup" ... so, let the user choose "attempt to take ownership of file or parent folder" at the time while they are in the process of another task.
note that part of this functionality could also be applied to another area of vault; eg whether in a "Search Results" page, or in view "Job Queue" display, allow multiple file selection to be part of a similar "manage ownership" functionality, and allow the functionality to be extended to manage the parent folder(s) of the files that are currently selected.
i think that if some consideration is given to this then with some development we could achieve a practical and improved result.
(please note that this is written with reference to vault collaboration 2012. i cannot say whether these things are already available in 2014)
As Vault administrator I found myself constantly moving Inventor files between folder with different security.
Everything works fine except for folders with Configuration factory members (suppose you know that those folders are moved only as a result of move factory-model).
Configuration factory model inherit security of destination folder (as expected) but folder with configuration members keep initial security.
Thus I'm constantly fixing security of those folders manually.
Vault users are most likely desire the same security of member and factory. Please add some more inteligence to the process.
I have seem many request for better file renaming within "Copy Design", this request is to add the renaming functionality.
It would be good to be able to replace a selected string length, within a name, with a new set of text.
My example is as follows: The first 5 characters of my file name are a code linked to the specific internal project number for the design. If I want to copy designs from various internal projects for reuse in a new project I need to replace the first 5 characters with a new text.
Project 1 code = 12345
Project 2 code = xx12x
If I run a rename of just the first 5 characters I can rename all the parts at once to have a new project number, instead of having to do a replace all for each project code copied from.
What would be nice is to be able to specify a seperator (in this case "-") and replace all text before it.
Use of wildcards would also help.
This may be a stretch, but would be a good way of communicating Vault Change Orders to non-Vault Pro users who need to be notification users and actually need to view the Change Order. Outlook has the Mail, Calendar, Contacts, and Tasks buttons on the lower left. How about a Change Order Add-in for Outlook to add to that list.
It could work similar to the Mail view where there is a list of Change Orders (from the users worklist) filtered by the Status of the Change Order and due date. Use the preview pane on the right for showing the contents of the Change Order. It could be just a cover sheet detailing the contents.
Right now we have users on the Notification list who do not have Vault Pro Client (do we really need to use up a license to view Change Orders?????), so the notification emails they receive are pretty much worthless as the emails do not contain Change Order details.
A customer of ours has the following request...
Send hyperlink of a vault folder via email option.
Instead of having to send a hyperlink for each file, just allowing one for the folder they reside in would be a simple less intensive process.
Thanks for the consideration.