Absent Member.. kruegke Absent Member..
Absent Member..
102 views

Use of Standard "Workflow" Field Does Not Work as Request Type Rule Dependency

I am attempting to use the out-of-the-box "Workflow" field (Token = "Workflow_ID") as a dependency in a Request Type Rule, in order to hide certain fields (via "setFieldVisible(false)") for different workflows. For some unknown reason, this rule does not recognize the "Workflow" dependency and therefore fields remain visible.  I have tested the same rule with the "Workflow" dependency removed, and desired fields are then hidden.

0 Likes
1 Reply
Super Contributor.. JodieOndrejka Super Contributor..
Super Contributor..

Re: Use of Standard "Workflow" Field Does Not Work as Request Type Rule Dependency

We have the Workflow field displayed on the request and use that request field token in our rules to hide/show fields based on which workflow is set for the request.  This has worked great for us.  Hope this helps. 🙂

0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.