GMSC Discussions

[Bob]

Hi all,

We have some GMSC forms developed by GMSC 2014. The forms have combobox components with help button. In GMSC 2014, the component is displayed correctly; however, in GMSC 2016 the "help" button drops down to the next line which breaks the form's layout.  

Here is how it shows in GMSC 2014 

The form in GMSC 2016

We also notice that in 2016, if we resize the window to be big enough and reload the form, the layout will show correctly, but resizing is undesiable and it is not good for end users.

Please note that we did follow the post (http://community.hexagongeospatial.com/t5/Developer-Discussions/Default-workflow-design-behavior-in-...) to make the GMSC 2016 displays forms with the same layout as GMSC 2014 does and it works fine for other form components, but not for components with help button

We appreciate all ideas and suggestions on this issue.

Kind regards,

[fmak]

Hi Bob,

I have filed CR-D 1-WX9KUE for this issue.

Regards,

Frank

[shruda]

Hi Bob,

such changes of our CSS files are not supported.

The "empty space" is reserved/needed for the workflow link groups.

Please increase the width value of your browse workflow action or set it to the default value (empty). The GMSC's default value is 1220x700px.

Best Regards,

Steve

[shaun.falconerinter…]

Hi Steve,

Follow up comments

1. Forms without workflow link groups used to display fairly well in version 2014.
   In version 2016 same form seems to require space for the workflow link group even though the group is not used.
   That results in requirement for a lot of unnecassary grey space around the form to meet the new minimum width requirement (not sure if new requirement is documented?? - have not specifically looked). I don't think client would be impressed if we delivered forms with lots of greyspace around them - bad use of screen estate and not so nice GUI look/feel.
   I understand CR-D 1-WX9KUE has been declined as WAD - though to me it worked fine in 2014 so should be CR-D regression.
   I'm planning to log an CR-E request that forms without a workflow link group don't require so much minimum space so they big ugly grey around them is not required.
   1. Example of form in version 2016 with new minimum width and all the grey:
      
   2. What we want to achieve:
      
2. Editing the CSS file to change min and max width was done in verison 2016 to get all our other forms to work. Again used to display fine in version 2014, but to get them to display correctly in version 2016 had to edit the CSS file.
   I will log a seperate SR/CR request to correct that behaviour for next upgrade.

Few of our clients forms presently use workflow link groups as the forms are principally for feature specific attribute display.

Any other ideas for resolving appreciated.

[sturcato]

Hi,

the behavior might be related to the responsive design in 2016. Have you already tried to tweak it like described here?

http://community.hexagongeospatial.com/t5/Developer-Discussions/Default-workflow-design-behavior-in-...

regards,

Stefano

[shruda]

Hi Shaun,

your mentioned change is related to one of GMSC 2016's highly requested features, the responsive design. I agree an information about the respsonsive design rules would be helpful. We will check our documentation and highlight the information about the repsonsive design rules (e.g minimum resolution) or add it if it is missing.

I understand that it would be nice if a workflow without a link group does not reserves the grey space at GMSC's browseWorkflow window.

However, sometimes we struggle with technical limitations and therefore we cannot provide a generic solution for the product.

If your clients are not happy and they claim about that, than one possible solution could be the definition of a custom template. E.g. where you remove the workflow link group.

Please feel free to create a Development ticket if you want that we create the custom template for you.

Best Regards,
Steve

[shruda]

Hi Stefano,

they use already that workaround and talking about the side-effects and as I mentioned before, we don't support changes of our CSS files.

The creation of a custom theme is the correct solution.

Best Regards,

Steve

[shaun.falconerinter…]

Thanks Steve - understood, I understand the responsive design is desirable and eggs break when putting such design changes in place.

We will have a play with the templates. Have had good outcomes with creating shared views in past, but havn't invested time in templates to date.