Idea ID: 2772410

User option entity link popup list - filter behavior with suggested value filter

Status : Waiting for Votes
over 1 year ago

When using entity link-type user option in an offering we recognized a strange behaviour:

To select other SMAX tables besides Person and Group we set the “Enable custom entity link to support OOTB entities” setting to “On” as described in the SMAX doc.

Then we created multiple user options of type entity link and added rendering rules to filter the selected tables. Afterwards we tested the offering both in the end-user Service Portal as well as in the agent interface via the Live Support form.

There are two different ways to fill in the user options with entity links:

  1. Dropdown: Clicking on the input field which opens a dropdown that shows the list.
  2. Popup: Clicking on the table icon next to the input field which opens a popup window that shows the list.

For all user options the dropdown (1) was correctly filtered and only showed entries that matched our “suggested value” filter rules. The behavior of the popup list (2), however, varied depending on the table we selected in the user option. For some tables the popup list was correctly filtered - just like the dropdown list – but for other tables the popup showed the entire, unfiltered version of the list.

Our expectation was that the filter rules were applied identically in both variants – dropdown and popup. 

We discussed with MicroFocus support and came to the conclusion that there are different behaviours depending on the entity you are refering to in the filter. Some entities like Person have a hard coded filter in the UI.

Within this idea we suggest to have the popup implemented in the same way as the dropdown, so regardless of the way the Live Support Agent or the End User will choose to fill out the user options, the entity is filtered in the way the user option is set up.


  • For us is this a compliance topic. We have different customers on the self service portal and it is an absolute "no go" to see information belonging to another customer based in such a list. From my point of view this is a defect with a high priority.

  • I see this as a DEFECT.  Why MF is forcing and ER/Idea Exchange, I don't understand.  Why anyone would filter a dropdown to to be able to select only Active records for someone to override using the table/hamburger button to the right to select an Inactive record is beyond me as a use case.  Any example of would be let's filter to Active Functional Groups only to have someone assign a ticket to an Inactive Group.  Now I saw someone mention about being able to update the columns in the table/hamburger view.  I see that as an enhancement and should have already been implemented in the tool.  I don't see the need for two different filter rules.

  • I add this commenc just to "subscribe" to this thread, as my profile in the new portal does not show any subscriptions.

  • Hi,

    this is not an ER but a defect.

    Same field on different areas behaves different.

    This prevents automation in all the above areas - or you can't use the dropdown/popup boxes in these areas. Which also is no option.

    R&D, please treat this as a DEFECT.

    Best regards



  • Ok, what would I expect as an user:

    If I see a GUI control for an entity link with a button to the right of the combobox, I expect the same behaviour of the combobox and the button. From a users perspective the current behaviour is a defect. This expectation can be fulfilled very easy: only one filter for the combobox and the button, no hard coded filter in the background.

    From a more flexible perspective I'd like to have one of these solutions:

    1. The possibility to configure whether the button is visible or not in in the field definition of an entity and user option in case the different behaviour cannot be changed.
    2. The possibility to define separate suggested value filters for the combobox and the button. In case I want to have the same behaviour both filters need the same definition. But each filter has to have a balloon help to explain the different behaviour of the combobox and the button for the user.

    So I would prefer a hotfix / patch to have an understandable behaviour of the GUI control for entity links. If someone really needs (currently I cannot see a use case) a different behaviour of the combobox and the button, that might be an enhancement request.

    Hope this helps.

    BR Volker