License management in F360M is not good enough In the security from F360M you can see which user is “ACTIVE”, “INACTIVE” or “DELETED”. If a User is having a License or not, is set in the Autodesk Account. The User can only work, if in the Account is a License assigned to the User. The synchronization between the Account and F360M should be done, when the User login in F360M. Then the status from the License is updated.   However, this is a major problem. This causes differences between the Account and F360M. Users, that are no longer in the company, can’t login in F360M. The User does not have a License, because it is removed in the Account. Or the User left the company and does not go to F360M and login anymore.   In case of that, in F360M are Users listed with a Licence. In the Account the License no longer assigned to this User. If you want to see as F360M Manager how many Licenses are pending, there is a gap between the Account and F360M.   It needs a possibility to synchronise the Account License with F360M. The F360M Admin does not have always access to the Account. However, he is all coordinating with F360M. Show More

Delegation Manager A possibility must be created to delegate all Workspaces from user A (vacation) to user B with only one delegation. Workspace select all.   Show More

In Classic UI on the Grid Tab you have the ability to set the Aggregation Sort Grouping - to essentially create sub-totals of values within the grid.  This feature is missing from the Modern UI. This feature is very help to in viewing and understanding what you have in your grid, especially when there are lots of row items.  Plus this is a feature existing FLC customers in the Classic UI would expect to have in the Modern UI going forward. Show More

For reports (tables and charts), I want the ability to select a checkbox on the report creation screen to add it to a reports menu as a direct link with the ability to add a short description for the menu selection.   This would give us the ability to directly incorporate important reports into Fusion Lifecycle from the main menu. The report/chart would then need to be displayed in the context of Fusion Lifecycle and not a popup window.   Also, all table reports should provide a button link to download as CSV/Excel without having to click back and then click the CSV/Excel option.   I'm asking for these changes because reports are important, and the report functionality feels like an afterthought now within FLC that isn't being well received by our user base. Reports need some UI cleanup. Show More

Hello,   Could you please add something to allow or not users the right to clone a PLM object?   Sometimes, in different workspaces it is very dangerous to have access to the clone feature because when you clone an object, all the fields contained into the tab “Details” of the first object are copied/pasted to the cloned object. Now, if you have fields that cannot be editable by the user who is cloning the object because they are filled automatically by script for a good reason (or in a restricted section managed by groups access), the cloned object will inherit the wrong information.   Example with a Change Request object: We have a workspace to create the change request for a document. A change request object is created and approved. When it is fully approved, a change order will be created into a second workspace called “Change Order”. Into the change order object, in its tab “Details”, we have a field (picklist pointed to the Change Request workspace) where it is automatically populated the related change request object. It is the same methodology from the change request side. Into the tab “Details” of the change request, we have a field pointed to the linked change order. This field cannot be change manually because it is automatically populated by script when the change order is created. Now, if a user would like to clone the change request, the information of the change order (linked to the old change request) is kept into the cloned change request and cannot be edited by the user. This can cause lot of problems as you can imagine.   Solution 1 Split the permission “Add Items” in two (“Add Items” and “Clone Items”). Unfortunately, a cloning action is like a create so technically we cannot add the permission “Clone Items” only but we must add the permission “Add Items” as well.   Solution 2: Keep the permission “Add Items” like it is and in the workspace itself, just have an option to allow or not the “Clone” feature. In that case, the clone is defined at the workspace level and not at the permission level. Problem: The clone feature must ONLY appear if the user has the permission “Add Items” AND if the option is allowed.   Thank you for your feedback. Sylvain Show More

We need the ability to get old/new values for item.update event through webhook call payload similar to existing events such as item.clone and item.release. This will avoid writing additional custom logic to make additional API calls and trying to figure out what got changed in the update event.   Refer to sample payload below for item.release event which includes old and new values getting published in the payload. "payload" : { "ItemUrn" : "urn:adsk.plm:tenant.workspace.item:TENANT.721.109597", "ItemDescription" : "NU000521", "NewItemUrn" : "urn:adsk.plm:tenant.workspace.item:TENANT.722.109597", "NewItemDescription" : "NU00052-2" }   It would be great if for attributes that need to be tracked we can get old/new values and the attributes can be controlled through the custom hook attributes feature or similar new feature. Show More

With Modern UI filter views allowing horizontal scrolling (Classic UI compressed all columns into the view), a freeze panes function as on Excel would be really useful. I envisage it as a toggle available on a column header (or maybe in the filter window) which freezes that column and allows scrolling on columns to the right of it. Show More

I need the ability to efficiently search a workspace via script.    All records where {workspace}\item.{field} = {value}     Show More

If we had the ability to change an item classification via script in conjunction with the ability to turn off the option to change the classification of the item in the GUI, this would open the door to several ideas for using FLC where it currently lacks.   For example, spawning a task from a workflow transition that adapts fields based on what type of task it is. This would be accomplished by setting the tasks classification by a script.         Show More

I need the ability to filter out a username from the System Log. Our service account runs continuously and it's hard to find real users in the logs. Show More

Hello, I am reviewing the Modern User Interface and have discovered that some updates have been done to improve the security on files of the attachments tab (adding of the “lock” option) as explained by @katelyndwilson  (Modern User Interface: Attachment checked-out).   But I think that Autodesk can do more 😊. Below, a few proposed improvements to improve the security of the objects in a workspace and attachments of an object. The next proposals can be included as permissions within “Administration > Security > Roles”.   Proposal 1: Include in the configuration of each workspace an option to attribute edition rights on the PLM object (attachments included) to the owner only if there is no associated workflow to this workspace. If there is a workflow, the condition script or precondition filters are used instead of this proposal. This option can be activated or not depending on the kind of the objects managed in the workspace. As of now, the conditions on the workflow are not enough because for example, a revision-controlled workspace doesn’t have a workflow and all the people who have the permissions “View Records Owned by Others” and “Edit Items” on the workspace can edit and modify the information. In our case, most of the internal employees of the company have these rights and everyone can modify the documents/items of other employees. You could argue that the users just need to change the owner of the section “Owner and Change Summary” to bypass this security but technically the administrator can manage the rights per workspace in a way that this section cannot be editable by normal users.   Proposal 2: Only the owner of the PLM object can lock a file if there is no workflow associated to the workspace. Like that, depending on the workspace or the objects managed, the administrator can configure it according the business needs (activate this option or not). For workspaces with a workflow, we can imagine a different configuration to lock the attachments. For example, only people who can edit the object during the workflow can lock a file or can only lock their own file. The problem is that I see lot of drawbacks like losing the spirit of this collaboration tool. For the workspace without a workflow, you can argue that all the users can edit the attachments before a manual operation of the owner to lock the attachments, see proposal 3 to complete proposal 2. For the workspace with a workflow, you can argue that a user can create another version of a file for which he is not the owner, thus becoming the new owner of the file version attached to object. This user would then have the possibility to lock the new version of the file, as he will be the new owner. This proposal is not mature, but I am sure that Autodesk can find a good process to implement it.   Proposal 3: Include an option to lock the attachments of an object directly when the working revision is created. After, only the owner of the object or the owner or the attachment file can unlock the attachments. This option can be activated or not depending on the kind of the workspace or the kind of objects being managed.   Amendment for all the proposal above: Of course, the administrators can bypass these securities and turn off the option or remove the lock on a file. In the classic user interface, when an employee has checked-out a file and for example has left the company, it was not possible to do an undo checkout even for the administrators. The only way to fix it was to download the file (version checked-out) delete the file (revert the object) and upload it again. If we had 10 files in the attachments, they had to be downloaded too and uploaded again after the revert. If it was needed to keep the file history (previous versions), we are forced to download each version, revert the PLM object to restore the working version as it was just before the released, then download each version of the file to re-build the history file. This solution is quite time-consuming, and information of the different versions uploaded was lost (who did the original upload + timestamp). Therefore, I suggest having a solution available for the administrators to bypass the security.   The optimal solution would be a mix of the proposals to cover all the security aspects and possible cases. Sylvain Show More