On Friday, it’s EpiUsers Frideas Day! Have you been to the Epicor Ideas Portal recently? If so, are there some ideas you want to encourage other users to vote for? Maybe want to add comments to an existing idea?
KIN I 5607 - Enable Company Context Switching on the Browser
Implement a selling quantity multiple (or lot sizing, whatever you want to call it) on the sales side. Like what’s already in the purchasing side.
Please save us from the catastrophe that is server file download:
Retrieve Log files from the Cloud Management Portal
A bit of self promotion but I feel this is a useful tool we need.
Ability to Mass Update Parts for “Track Inventory by Revision”
I pushed hard to get attention on this one. This is a big deal. I’m not going to share details here. Please don’t share details outside of the Ideas login walls.
Increase Kinetic Customization Descriptions from x(60) to x(255)
https://epicor.ideas.aha.io/ideas/KIN-I-6259
Please increase the kinetic layer description field from x(60) to x(1024).
The more I work in Grow BI, the more ideas I have … Grow users, please vote!
Currently when I have to rearrange metrics on a dashboard, I zoom way out so my metrics are tiny and I can see a bunch of them at a time. Then I drag and drop.
Grow BI: Make it Easier to Rearrange Metrics on | Epicor Ideas Portal
I’d be worried the implementation of that would be like moving a picture around on a word document, I’d be happier with the ability to select multiple metrics at once so I can move a group of them down and make room.
Here’s a couple new ones for me:
Min Max Safet Mass Update - add additional filters/data columns:
How about adding filters for part type, buyer, planner?
Min Max Safety Filter and Data Adds | Epicor Ideas Portal
Part Quantity Status - add Number of Pieces for AUoM:
Part Quantity Tracker - Add additional columns | Epicor Ideas Portal
If you saw the EpiUsers podcast on Security, you’ll see @josecgomez address this. It is really up to the users to set up the security properly. Menu security is nice, but you are not going to have proper security unless you tighten up the field and service security on the business objects.
It might make a good idea to have a way to translate menu security into service/field security so it doesn’t have to be done in two places. 
I should have clarified on the Idea. That’s what support recommended. Field security works functions the same way, no difference. Service security cuts off access to the nominal menus entirely.
In service security, you can restrict by the objects method, so only people in a security group can run .Update for example. This would make the object available to users who only run trackers.
Field Security SHOULD work the same, but recently I have seen some fields not enforce the access while others do.
You got notified through Ideas no doubt after I commented, but hopefully they will merge your Idea with the existing one.
To be fair, I was so lazy that day that I didn’t even make the Idea myself; @jgehling did.
That’s interesting… I don’t think it solves the Idea topic, but I’d be tempted to implement something like that if it could be manageable at scale.
If service method ↔ form objects is a loop that can be closed, that could become a functional path to mapping process security back to navigation rather than the intended other way around. Kinda Rube Goldberg but feasible if it can be managed at scale, at least for reasonably skilled admins.
This is a bug and that should absolutely be fixed. Field security should be enforced it is crazy that it doesn’t if that’s the case.
There is a bug in kinetic where it doesn’t look like field security works because the field doesn’t get disabled in the UI. However the security is actually enforced (values not saved).
