Skip to main content
New Idea

Parity request: Allow all operators in sharing groups

Related products:CS Data Management & Integrations
cmultanen
faust_belarmino
samantha_braastad
alex_legay
heather_hansen
+9
  • cmultanen
    cmultanen
  • faust_belarmino
    faust_belarmino
  • samantha_braastad
    samantha_braastad
  • alex_legay
    alex_legay
  • heather_hansen
    heather_hansen
  • kelly
    kelly
  • waynedilworth
    waynedilworth
  • K10Halls
  • romihache
    romihache
  • Rhi
  • Cheri
  • Callan-HotDoc
  • jparker
    jparker
  • katelyn.turner
    katelyn.turner

romihache
  • VIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
  • 426 replies

Hi
I was working on sharing groups today and noticed that the operators are different than in Report Builder. Not only limited/different options but the ones that we do have behave differently.

Eg: I want to create a group where License Type = Viewer Analytics and the User Title contains "product”. In sharing groups there are only 4 options: =, !=, in, and nin that I assume are “equals” “not equals”, “in” and "not in” in Report Builder.
Well, the “contains” is missing... Let’s use the “in”, not ideal, but better than adding al possible strings one by one and use an OR clause in the advanced criteria.  Used to Report Builder behaviour I typed the first string, tab key, and nothing happened. I was about to submit a ticket and shooting in the dark, tried separating the values with commas, and that worked.

So my requests will be:
· Can you allow operators that exist everywhere else in the platform, to sharing groups too?
· Can those be named consistently across the platform?
· Can the behaviour be the same? (eg, tab key instead of commas)


Thanks
 


Sharing group filters vs Report Builder filters:


Sharing Group filter:
 


Filter behaviour in Report Builder:

 

3 replies

TMaier
Forum|alt.badge.img+5
  • Helper ⭐️
  • 175 replies
  • October 19, 2023

Good catch. Parity in itself is an absolutely valid reason to make an update here, but the additional control and flexibility provided by expanding the operators feels like an easy way to make the system more useful for unique business cases.


dayn.johnson
Forum|alt.badge.img+6
  • VIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
  • 647 replies
  • October 19, 2023

Absolutely agree 💯%! 

Product enhancement shouldn’t remove existing logical operators users might have implemented in their workflows. That’s not progress… that’s a step backward!


puna.paahana
Forum|alt.badge.img+2
  • Contributor ⭐️⭐️
  • 8 replies
  • May 17, 2024

Is there any update on this? Currently working on building a sharing group that identifies our CSMs and have been forced to use title as the primary criteria. With the report options this could be done with two conditions. With the options the way they are now, I’m having to create conditions using “=” for every type of title and I’ve already had to create a second list to accommodate.


Reply


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