Skip to main content
New Idea

CTA Rule Action : Field Edibility : Separate Edibility Setting For Rules Engine & UI

Related products:None
  • February 24, 2021
  • 6 replies
  • 50 views
heather_hansen
jcyoungkin
  • heather_hansen
    heather_hansen
  • jcyoungkin
    jcyoungkin
kevin_ly

Posting on behalf of a customer.

 

Currently to get fields to show up in the “Additional fields” section in the Call to Action action in Rules Engine.  CTA field would need to be marked editable within a given CTA Layout Configuration on a given CTA Type.

 

However that same field “Editable” Setting is used to allow an End User or CSM to modify the same field.

 

There are use cases where the field is only meant to be set by an automated method like rules engine, but isn’t meant for CSMs to edit, such as NPS Score and NPS Respondent Email. Therefore it be good to have a additional check box to allow edit from “Rule Engine” and another check box for “UI Editability”.

6 replies

sai_ram
Forum|alt.badge.img+1
  • sai_ram
  • Expert ⭐️⭐️
  • 3727 replies
  • February 24, 2021

@kevin_ly Thanks for sharing your request here. To explore more on this sharing with the product team. 

sriram pasupathi

@kevin_ly To clarify, you want admins to be able to choose which fiellds can be manually edited by CSMs and which fields can be updated only by rules (or mass edit). Is that correct?

sai_ram
1 person likes this
  • sai_ram
    sai_ram
sai_ram
Forum|alt.badge.img+1
  • sai_ram
  • Expert ⭐️⭐️
  • 3727 replies
  • May 20, 2021
sriram pasupathi wrote:

@kevin_ly To clarify, you want admins to be able to choose which fiellds can be manually edited by CSMs and which fields can be updated only by rules (or mass edit). Is that correct?

@kevin_ly did you get a chance to view the comments here?

darkknight
Forum|alt.badge.img+4
  • darkknight
  • Expert ⭐️
  • 1980 replies
  • February 20, 2025

Running into this scenario now. In the new Cockpit Config UI, this same limitation persists.
 


Deselecting this box essentially makes the field unusable.

Jeff Kirkpatrick
angela_domenichelli
alizee
2 people like this
  • angela_domenichelli
    angela_domenichelli
  • alizee
    alizee
angela_domenichelli
Forum|alt.badge.img+12
  • angela_domenichelli
  • Contributor ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
  • 245 replies
  • February 20, 2025

I have never found a reason to have a field in a CTA layout that cannot be edited by any process.  It would always be NULL, and why would you want a NULL field in a CTA?  

Angela Domenichelli (She/Her/Hers)
alizee
1 person likes this
  • alizee
    alizee
alizee
Forum|alt.badge.img+12
  • alizee
  • VIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
  • 660 replies
  • February 20, 2025

That differentiation is much needed. I guess to an extend, we are expected to prevent edits from the UI through the 360 layouts. But it’d be more effective to do it in data management… to set the baseline. 

If you don’t want to make mistakes, don’t do anything. If you want to learn, ask questions and make mistakes, except in construction because they’re the most expensive part of building.

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings

Cookie policy

We use cookies to enhance and personalize your experience. If you accept you agree to our full cookie policy. Learn more about our cookies.

 
Cookie settings