Enhance the parent/child relationship functionality in the Job Starter to match the functionality in the full application

Joe Cerep 2 years ago in Productivity Management updated by Amelia Ross 5 months ago 19

Job Starter vs Full Application Functionality - Please see attached video. When utilizing an EA in multiple sections of Activity Page Layout, the Job Starter Form behaves differently than the full application. There are times that Parent/Child relationships in the Page Layout are not honored in the Job Starter form but they are in the full application Activity Details section. The Job Starter functionality should mirror the full application functionality as the only way to configure Parent/Child relationships for Job Starter forms is through the Activity Page Layout section.

This functionality is part of Release 117 and is behind the FF "work-request-ea-multiple-sections".  This FF works in conjunction with work-request, new-dropdown-experience and new-dropdown-experience-v2 FFs, which also must be on.  This information will be included in the Release Note and be listed on the Feature Flag page list. 

Joe Cerep, I was able to replicate the configuration of First Tactic Selection, Second Tactic Selection example that you demonstrated to me and it is working correctly with this feature flag.  Thank you very much for your time helping me understand your situation - it was invaluable.  

Joe, I have watched the video you uploaded here but have some questions.  Please let me know when you can jump on a quick call.  Thank you. 

We will do a research spike in the next Sprint to understand what changes are necessary to support this and I will update this posting with information on our plan to execute after that story is done.  

Can we clarify the ask here?  Are we talking purely about whether a field is displayed or not on the form?  So when you create sections of fields in a Work Request have the option to say it should only display when field A has a value of "Yes" selected?

Or are we also talking about cascading relationships between fields?  Meaning when I pick the value in the "State" field to be "Indiana" then the values in the City field are limited to "South Bend, Indianapolis, Evansville"?  

I believe this thread is only about displaying sections right?

Hi Eric,

This is specifically about how sections are displayed when using EAs in multiple sections in Page Layout. Activity Details displays the configuration a different way than Work Request Forms do.

Our specific configuration that is impacted:

Section 1:

First Tactic Selection (parent)

How many different emails are needed? (child field triggered if "email" was selected for the parent)

How many different direct mail pieces are needed? (child field triggered if "direct mail was selected for parent)


Section 2

Second Tactic Selection (parent)

How many different emails are needed? (child field triggered if "email" was selected for the parent)

How many different direct mail pieces are needed? (child field triggered if "direct mail was selected for parent)


Activity Details: will display the child fields as long as the value for the parent field is selected for ANY of the parent fields in any section.

Work Request Form: seems to honor the most recent value entered into a parent field. i.e. "email" is selected for First Tactic Selection and How many different emails are needed? is displayed. When "direct mail" is selected for Second Tactic Selection, How many different emails are needed? disappears even though First Tactic Selection still = "email".

Happy to set up a screen share to demo this or provide more specific details if needed. (I believe CS0023531 may be related to this issue as well)

We also found that this is an issue when Work Requests are copied. Again, the Job Starter form will not display the cascading fields until the parent is actively re-entered by the user.

The ask here is the display of fields depending upon the existing or entered values of another field (cascading sections/fields).  It would be expected that parent-child value controls would be in effect.  For example: Field A is set to a default value (or was copied from a previous request) which results in the display of Fields B and C.

We recently logged CS0023531 regarding this scenario.

AARP needs this enhancement to enable cascading fields to appear properly on Job Starter forms without regarding the same selection to make by the users.

Please prioritize this enhancement request.

We have also found that every scenario of page layout section rules needs to be met before the field will appear on the job starter form. So if you have a field in multiple sections, as it looks like on your video, every rule needs to be met before the field will be displayed.  This is why we are pushing for the JS to function like the DCTs. 

I think the real struggle is the fact that both JS and Activity Details sections are only able to be configured through Page Layout and yet they currently function in different ways.While we would prefer that JS functionality mimics the functionality of Activity Details in the full application, I understand the reasoning for the request to have JS function like DCTs and don't disagree that it could be an improvement over current functionality depending on business process. 

To clarify on the JS functionality - I don't believe all section rules need to be met before the field will appear based on our testing. I think that the most recent input in an EA that is used in multiple sections is overriding previous sections that the rule was met for. In the example shown in the video:

- How Many Different Emails are Needed? is set to display if:
         - First Tactic Selection = Email

             - Second Tactic Selection = Email

             - Third Tactic Selection = Email

             - Fourth Tactic Selection = Email

             - Fifth Tactic Selection = Email

If all rules needed to be met the "How Many Different Emails are Needed?" EA wouldn't show up unless all five fields were set to Email. We saw that when Email was selected in any of the Tactic Selection fields, the "How Many Different Emails are Needed?" field would appear as we intended it to. As soon as any input other than Email was selected for any of the other Tactic Selection fields, the "How Many Different Emails are Needed?" EA would be removed. I believe the system is looking at the most recently updated Tactic Selection field and because Email was not selected, it removes the "How Many Different Emails are Needed?" EA even though the rule to display that EA is still being met in a different Tactic Selection section.

I am part of the Job Request early adopter program (Wells Fargo) and we have already turned in a request to change Job Request (aka Job Starter) configuration to behave similar to a DCT in that we can create unique cascading relationships in Job Request independent of how that EAs work on the Activity Page Layout.  This will give us the most flexibility and allows us to place the EAs on multiple Activity Pages with different cascading relationship.  Would this functionality meet your needs?

Would certainly meet needs for my client. It is indeed more flexible if the cascading relationship behaviour can be configured on the level of the work request. 

Hi Mike,

Unfortunately for our specific build having the Job Starter configuration mimic DCT functionality would not meet our needs. We utilize the system parameter allowing EAs to be used in multiple sections and would need that functionality available to our requesters when they are submitting a Job Request. Given the only way to configure Job Request Forms when we purchased the system was through Page Layout, we configured our Activities & Job Request Forms with the expectation that the parent/child functionality would be identical in these two areas.

Potentially a new system parameter could allow admins to select which functionality they want Job Request Forms to utilize if both options could be supported but we do need the Job Request Form to function exactly as the Activity Details section does.

Hi Joe, thinking about this further I'm thinking a setting on each Work Request to determine which option to follow (Activity vs custom).  If rolled out then all Work Requests would default to Activity then as we go to change them we can change to custom.  

Agreed: an Activity vs. Custom option on each work request form would be ideal. They may be opportunities to use both options but what you described would allow admins the flexibility to choose either or.