Add confirmation functionality to guard rules in user actions

Peter van Meijel 7 months ago • updated 2 weeks ago 10 1 duplicate

As an administrator, I want that the guard rule terminates a user action if a user does not confirm so that accidental mistakes are avoided.

(WHY) Some user/bulk actions may have consequences that are hard to revert. In this case, is is desirable to be able to ask the user to confirm that he wants to start an action.

(WHO) Administrator

(WHAT) Add confirmation functionality to guard rules in user actions

Current Situation

When a Delete Document rule is part of a user action, a confirmation is shown. Apart form that, no confirmations are shown to the user when an action starts.

Acceptance Criterea

This story consists to two parts:

  • Adding the rule
  • Asking a confirmation when the rule starts

Add the Guard rule

To add a rule, the administrator completes these steps:

  1. Open a document definition
  2. Go to the workflow section
  3. Opens an user action
  4. Click on insert and then on Guard
  5. Enters the confirmation text in the Confirmation box (see mockup 1).
  6. Clicks on Update to remember the changes
  7. Close the action dialog
  8. Click on Save to persist the document definition.
Note: Please note that the Confirmation property is only visible for Guard rules in user actions.

Ask confirmation

BizzStream determines as follows up to what point rules are executed:

1. BizzStream will show a confirmation dialog (see mockup 2) for each of the Guard rules with a confirmation question.

2. If a confirmation dialog is cancelled, no further confirmation dialogs are presented to the user. BizzStream will ask the server to execute the rules up to the Guard rule that was not confirmed.

3. On the server the rules up to the Guard rule that was not confirmed are executed. If one of these rules throws an error or a Guard rule is triggered via the Execute Only If functionality, the user action is interrupted at that point.

Note: A guard rule with a confirmation dialog can thus interrupt the user action if the Execute Only If condition resolves to true, even though the user clicked Ok in the confirmation dialog.

UI/UX Design

Mockup 1: The confirmation properties in the Guard rule

Mockup 3: The confirmation dialog

Duplicates 1

In the confirmation question textarea we are able to make use of a translation placeholder?

Yes indeed, it is a text area and we should be able to use placeholders. Not only translation placeholders should be supported, but also system, currentUser and document placeholders.

Is it possible to partially confirm a user action? So in case of multiple rules and multipele confirmations, the rules are executed up until a confirmation rule is not confirmed (so it's acting like a dynamic guard (in this case, please consider extending the guard rule functionality; it's functionally very close, and to keep the number of rules acceptable )). If this is not the case, I'd suggest to make it part of the ua / ba general section, adding multiple confirmation messages; to avoid confusion about the position in the ruleset, which would be senseless.

I would do it slightly different, because:

1. I think the confirmation message only has to be answered for rules that are hard to revert (which in my opinion is not that many)
2. I think to add a general "confirmation rule" will lead to a lot of confusion by administrators, because of the place in the (rules)list

3. I think it is very annoying for users to answer a lot of confirmation messages => especially on their small mobile phone || it makes you feel stupid...

so why not:

 - Add the confirmation checkbox above the execute only if textbox (which is reactive)

if is checked: 

- Show a custom textbox in which you can fill in the confirmation question if (isEmpty) don't do anything
- Show the execute only if textbox again

So then you can set confirmation question only for those rules that are hard to revert.....

Hey All,

Thanks for your suggestions.

Kilian's solution adds a confirmation step to existing rules. This seems to create a situation that by not confirming, only the rule at hand is skipped but not the following ones (is this the case?).

My original idea was to show the confirmations at the start of the action. If cancelled, the action as a whole does not start. I hoped that this was not too confusing, by the initial reactions to this story prove me wrong.

That's why I'd like to follow Bram's suggestion:

  • We make it possible to partially confirm user actions. In case of multiple rules and multipele confirmations, the rules are executed up until a confirmation rule is not confirmed.
  • We do this by extending the Guard rule. We add a confirmation box to the rule (only if added to a user action), which triggers a confirmation to be shown.

I hope this makes it clearer for administrators to understand how the Guard rule works.
In Progress
Staged for Release

This one is released already