Home > User Voice > Archiving issues-proposals

Archiving issues-proposals NOT NOW
1

Hello Everyone,

We have some challenges with Archiving in Webcon BPS, so we have some ideas to improve.
1. Issue: you cannot setup field availibility for archived instances
Proposal: there could be a 3rd form editor like standard/mobile form have. Or/and additional field matrix setting controlling visibility on archive form.

2. Issue: Instance level privileges are not inherited to archived instances.
It is a problem as we have readonly permissions granted based on instance attribute. (use case: Incoming invoice visibility for users depends on invoice types.)
Proposal: in archiving action it would be nice to have a parameter to control permission inheritance.

What do you think about it?
Thanks!

WEBCON

Hello Peter,

the main idea behind the archiving mechanisms is to help efficiently manage instances that are no longer actively used but need to be stored. For instance, in many countries, legal documents need to be kept despite the fact they are no longer in use.
Archiving mechanisms also help with keeping the main content database fairly lean.

Therefore, by design, once you archive elements, it's impossible to interact with them as you'd normally do and we plan to keep it that way (the ability to tinker with archived data is undesirable by most organizations).

With that said, I see 2 possible solutions to the cases you brought up:
1. [If you do not need to move workflow instances from your main content database] Make sure your process ends with a final "Archive" step. Then you can freely assign field visibility and permissions.
2. [If you do need to move instances from your main content database] Move the workflow instances to the separate process that would be used specifically for archiving purposes with elevated visibility and permissions options.

I also encourage you to contact our experts via https://support.webcon.com as they might have more ideas and will be able to provide you with more detailed solutions.

In reply to: Michal Rykiert

Hello Peter,

the main idea behind the archiving mechanisms is to help efficiently manage instances that are no longer actively used but need to be stored. For instance, in many countries, legal documents need to be kept despite the fact they are no longer in use.
Archiving mechanisms also help with keeping the main content database fairly lean.

Therefore, by design, once you archive elements, it's impossible to interact with them as you'd normally do and we plan to keep it that way (the ability to tinker with archived data is undesirable by most organizations).

With that said, I see 2 possible solutions to the cases you brought up:
1. [If you do not need to move workflow instances from your main content database] Make sure your process ends with a final "Archive" step. Then you can freely assign field visibility and permissions.
2. [If you do need to move instances from your main content database] Move the workflow instances to the separate process that would be used specifically for archiving purposes with elevated visibility and permissions options.

I also encourage you to contact our experts via https://support.webcon.com as they might have more ideas and will be able to provide you with more detailed solutions.

Hi Michal,

Thanks for your respond!
I understand concept of archiving in Webcon, I know that interaction is not possible.
What I am saying (point 2.) that after archiving, we loose read only privileges which were granted on instance level based on an attribute. This way we cannot control which archived instances should be visible for a group/user.
The other thing I mentioned (point 1.) , that today we do not have any control over form field visibility in archived instances, which imho would be useful.

Yes, we had the idea to keep these intances in Archived step or move to an other simpler workflow, but this way we would loose the main purpose to free up some storage space in active content db.

So a solution for at least to our privilege problem with archiving would be appreciated!