BPM assign Team on new record

Hi,

I'm a little confused about this feature, and it may be a bug, not sure so here goes:

I've setup a simple definition so that on new Contract record creation it sets a specific Team (say 'Contracts Team').

However, just tested different scenarios on a v10 Sugar demo, and the way this works is weird.

if anybody that is in the same Team (Contracts Team) as defined in the BPM, then on create new Contract all works fine, only Contracts Team is added to record.

Bbut if a another user not part of that Team creates it, then it add the Contracts Team fine, but also adds the creating User private Team as well! Slight frown

Am I doing it wrong or is this not possible in BPM?

  • Hi Tony

    In case of Private Team won't be added in addition to the Team specified directly, the process initiating user  - the creator of the Contract - may never access to the record created. That user probably has a Private Team set as default Team in the user profile.
    Makes sense?

    All the best,
    Dmytro

  • hi thanks for replying.

    The creator normally would be able to create the record, but then after save not see it and get a quick error message, that would be fine and intentional.

    My test was done on vanilla Sugar Demo, all Users have the default team set to Global as primary, nothing else.


    Do you get a different result?

  • hi Tony,

    I confirm the behavior you observe
    Then please check wether assignedTo user for the contract belongs to the "Contracts Team"

    As I remember, OOTB before save of any record (including Contracts), it is checked whether the AssignedTo user belongs to any of the selected Teams. If not, the assignedTo user's Private Team is added to record automatically. 

    All the Best,
    Dmytro

  • Hi
    The assigned user is usual the creator as per default.

    Didn't realise this was the OOTB functionality, but I can see the reasoning now why it does this.

    Thank you for helping me understand this was 'intentional'.

    So if any User is creating these on the behalf of another User that is part of the Contracts Team they need to change it before saving. :-)

    Would it be possible to also make any new associated/related records via subpanels do the same via BPM?

    i.e. New related Contacts, Documents etc?

  • So if any User is creating these on the behalf of another User that is part of the Contracts Team they need to change it before saving. :-)

    Selecting assignedTo from Contract Team could be  a part of the Process :

      

    Alternatively, an additional Team with only 1 default user who belongs to Contract Team could be created, e.g. "Default Contract Team Assignee". Then use it in the Round Robin instead of "Contracts Team", so that round-robin always set that member of Contract Team as AssignedTo.

    Both options would help to avoid forcing users to select assignedTo manually prior saving the Contract

  • Would it be possible to also make any new associated/related records via subpanels do the same via BPM?

    Do you mean if e.g. the Note related to the Contract may inherit the Team/AssignedTo from Contract instead of using the default user's profile values ?

    I haven't heard about the cascade team/assignedTo updates in Sugar.

    SugarBPM could set the value for the field if it is specified directly, but I have doubts if let you set the value dynamically, e.g. set Note field value equal to Contract field

    To get more flexibility in data manipulation, we suggest using visual Logic Builder for Sugar that extends SugarBPM

  • Selecting assignedTo from Contract Team could be  a part of the Process

    Thanks for the suggestion, unfortunately wouldn't work in this use case because their is still a requirement to assign to specific users, especially for Accounts (I didn't mention but same requirement for Assigning Team to them also)

    It would also probably annoy the users that are part of the Contracts Team that create their own records :-)

  • It could be specified with criterion for which records to run the process instance

    Do you have the full description of the use case ?