I have a scenario as given in the below workflow diagram using core service.
First step is manual step author will create/edit content and finish the activity and it is assigned to everyone.
In the second step, I want to do filter the users based on their groups.
In the third step, couple of scenario
a. If the user belongs to group "A" I want to list out all the next 3 available activities, User A can choose any one of these 3 activities.
b. If the user belongs to group "B", I want to list out "Reviewer" and "Approver" activity as next activity, user b can select any one of these 2.
Can any one give some idea to achieve this?
You should turn your problem around. Yes, it is possible, but the amount of knowledge required will be a huge barrier for you to implement.
So, instead think about it differently.
Change your "Filter Next activity" automated activity to an automatic decision, and have your code that determines the group membership also determine which activity should be next
have 2 forward paths from there - 1 for the users of Group A, other for the users of group B
on each forward path, have different selection options. You may try having links to the same activity from 2 different manual decisions, I don't know if that works though.
Worst case scenario you'll have repeated activities (not in name, but in function), and you saved yourself about 2 months of headaches trying to cope with the learning curve of doing CME extensions.
The simple answer to your initial question is: "no, this functionality is not out of the box".
But of course many things are possible by implementing critical parts yourself.
You'd probably need a GUI extension of some sorts to allow the user to pick from a list.
You'd need to store the information between phases of your custom solution.
And you'd then need some code in an automated workflow activity to implement the picking of the next activity.
Most of these steps have been covered in other questions already. Did you have a look for each of these? If so, you might want to share how far you already got and where you are stuck.
Related
Hello FullCalendar team,
I am looking to build a feature that would limit the type of events that could go into a specific timeslot.
For example, I would like to indicate to a front-desk end-user that only a certain type of appointment was allowed to be entered into the timeslot. Perhaps the timeslot only takes meeting types that are tagged "check-ins" and "follow-ups" arbitrarily set by some higher up admin.
What would be the best way to go about building this limitation and displaying it to the user? I saw that there is an overlap function I might be able to use along with background-events. The higher-up admin might be able to create background-events that if they overlap with another requested event then limits the type. THen it would be very clear that any certain color-coded event set by the higher-admin would indicate that only certain types could be added.
But am I missing a very obvious way to do this? I was hoping there might be an easier way to templatize the day for end-users. Appreciate the advice.
Lets say I wish to track
User action - game he played - which area he stays - his house number.
If I were to track these event actions in Tabular format, it would look like:
UserId|Game|Area|House|Timestamp so on.
Then I can always run SQL queries if I want to answer few business queries. Like
1. In a given day/week, who is the most active User
2. Which game is most-played?
3. Which area plays most events
4. Which user from which area are the most active
Whats the best way to capture this using Google analytics? Will custom dimensions be useful. Or GA is not suitable for this kind of insight?
Thanks.
First of all, the house number is too precise, it would be against GA's ToS.
In GA everything is captured in "hits", you can think of this as one "row" of data.
Let's look at what you wanted to find out:
Most Active User? - This depends on how you determine "Active". Is it the longest Session durations? Tried most games? Most logins? Most sessions? To track a user, you'd need a User ID tracked.
Which game is played the most? - Again, what is played the most? Longest time in game? Most "start" games? This would require you to know the Game that was played and when someone started playing
Which area is most active? -This would go back to the definition of active, the region information is needed along with the active definition
Which users are most active in an area? Same as above, the user would need to be identified and area
To determine which Custom Dimensions (CDs) you want, let's look at the example data points you want to track and try to determine the scope and if it already exists as a standard dimension:
User ID - this is obviously related to the user, makes sense to be user-scoped
Game - This is a tougher CD. I would think that in a single session, users can play multiple games, thus I'd think you'd want this to be hit-scoped.
Area - GA already provides this based on the ISP
Timestamp - GA already provides time dimensions
From above, we can determine that you need to create two CDs, one to track User ID, the other to track the Game.
You can also look into using the userid feature in GA for cross-device tracking.
I have two queries related to SCRUM. They are as follows:
I have read that the format of SCRUM story is "As a < type of user >, I want < some goal > so that < some reason >". I have to write a story for an API. This API will send an email with a link to validate the email address of the user. What will be the type of user here? Will it be the user logged in?
Do subtasks have story format similar to a story or it can be a normal description?
The trouble you are encountering is likely that you are starting from a determined implementation and then trying to work backwards to the need (unless your product is an API that your users leverage, in which case I think that answers your questions).
When we approach it from a user need, we'll usually end up with more of a problem statement, like
"As a vacationer, I'd like the site to calculate the best route across
all types of transportation for me so that I don't have to run many
searches to figure it out myself."
One of the pieces of delivering on this need will be creating the API calls if your application architecture calls for that. Then "add API method for aggregated call" may be a task under that user story.
You will have cases where all a particular story needs is API work, and that's fine, but it won't come out in the user story. For example, let's say we did the about user story but limited it to planes and trains for the first start, then we created another story that reads:
"As a vacationer in the US, I want my trip planner to factor in buses
so that I can make use of bus tours in my vacation."
Now, maybe the only task in there is to create a some API changes to include the bus routes in the search, but that doesn't cause a problem with your user stories because we started back at the user's problem statement in the beginning instead of starting at the desired implementation and working backward.
Let's start clarifying some concepts first.
Scrum is not an acronym so is written as Scrum (proper name). Then, there is nothing called "Scrum Stories". What you are referring to is called: user story. User stories were wide used in the Chrysler C3 project were eXtreme Programming was developed. Furthermore, you are referring to a particular template which was popularized by Mike Cohn known as canonical form. So it's ok to express your Product Backlog Item as user stories for an API. But take into account that you can use this template, you can use user stories or you can write the Product Backlog Item the way has more sense and value to you. In your case, which is the persona, machine or service which will be used the API?
About your second question. The Scrum Guide just says you should decompose your Sprint Planning in unit of work of 1 day or less. Normally, the implementation is to create this unit of work and call them task which are the work necessary to carry out the user story. The way the are written is open too but is not quite common to write them in the canonical form. So you can write it as an ID, title and a description.
This is my current understanding of the events on pressing the Activate button:
If the user has replication permission, the content is sent to the dispatcher.
If the user does not have replicate, the Request for Activate workflow is run. Out of the Box this performs two steps which are both sent to the Administrators group.
If I change the OOB Request for Activation workflow to assign to another group then this group gets the message in their CQ Inbox instead.
My requirement is that I have multiple websites belonging to different divisions within the company, meaning that each has separate groups for users who can only author content and users who can Approve/Activate that content. In one case there is an additional requirement for the content in the careers section to be approved by the HR team only.
How can I alter the workflow to achieve these requirements?
I can think of two ways of doing this:
1) Change the OOB box workflow to use OR steps to switch to differnt groups based on the content path. This could get very complex when dealing with pages for both pages and assets, and the special conditions like the careers example.
2) Create a custom step that runs Java code that uses the AccessControlManager class to look for replicate permissions on the node, and if there aren't any then to traverse up the tree until it finds a node with permissions.
I've gone with option 1) for a similar problem.
If your main concern is having too many branches in your OR Split, maybe there's an opportunity to break down the workflow's decisions into multiple steps, instead of having one decision point where it branches out to many different paths.
For example, you might first split by what site the payload is on, and then split again based on user type, or section of the site. So, something like:
site 1
section 1
role 1
role 2
section 2
site 2
... and so on, where each level of indentation represents a separate OR Split.
If you use the Container Step to trigger a sub-workflow at each of these decision points, that may help keep your workflow more organised.
Because I didn't love the idea of changing the OOB Request for Activation workflow, I minimised that by making the first step an OR Split that does a generic check - basically:
Pseudo-code:
if (we're in one of the sites that's subject to my custom workflows) {
Container step that points to my main custom workflow;
} else {
Continue with the default Request for Activation workflow steps;
}
That way you make minimal changes to the OOB workflow, and leave yourself open to running the default workflow if you set up a new site on the same instance, and don't want it subject to your custom workflow.
We've created a custom property in each page, "page owner", which in fact is a pointer to a group (I wish we have made it inheritable through the tree since beginning). Then workflow was customized so that page owner group receives this in their inbox for approval.
We're investigating Alfresco for doing wideband delphi ("planning poker") based on submitted statements of work (collected user stories). I've been reading through the Alfresco documentation, and there are two questions that I haven't been able to get clear answers to:
Can we set it up so users can write, but not read, to a folder or node? (To support "anonymous" planning, without users knowing what the other users submitted estimates were)
Can workflow tasks be implemented to ask users to comment or submit items to a node or director with the above model, rather than just simple approve or deny?
Workflow:
User submits a statement of work
All users (or selected users at random, or ... ) in group get notice to review
Reviews include estimates on the overall SOW or specific phases
Reviews are anonymous/secret to all but the manager
Have you implemented something similar in Alfresco with fine grained access control? Sharing your experience would be very helpful... i'm not looking for someone to do the work for me, just to confirm it can be done.
I would use some kind of parallel workflow for this.
First the managers starts the workflow and the task type of this first node will have additional info about the user story and such, then the manager selects a people or a group to which it will send this user story.
Here comes the parallel thing into play. Because it's parallel noone sees the results of the other members of the workflow. The members fill in the requested fields (another custom task type with data like: score (estimate) and maybe explanation.
Before the workflow goes back to manager the automatic calculations are made in a non-user task/node where you calculate overall score for the story. You can include each individual user and their score in the result/report if necessary.
Now the results are sent to the manager.