We have no problem attaching ecm attachments in the kinetic UI, but when we click to View the attachment, a prompt for ECM credentials pops up. I am so confused - the same ECM attachment can be viewed from the classic UI without a prompt. What’s up with that?
I’ve had a ticket in about this for a while - pre-2023.1. Case CS0003627224 / PRB0266021 / ERPS-223562
Edit: To clarify, I entered a ticket for this issue while we were on 2022. In 2023.1, it was fixed in the browser, but still an issue in the Smart Client, so I entered another ticket (the one referenced above).
As of 2023.5, ECM attachments can be viewed from Kinetic in the browser without a log in, but it’s still broken in the Smart Client. Nothing happens when you click on View .
It is fixed in 2023.1.5. Before then, it is just a mess 
@jkane Is it working for you in the Smart Client as well? It only works for me on the web on 2023.1.5.
Classic UI it is.
Well thanks for the info. Unfortunately the relevant screens are already switched to kinetic and we are on 2022.2 so I think our only option will be to download the files.
You could find the posts here where people have set the downloads to auto open after download. Not sure if it is worth it, but it would be another option.
Well now support is telling me that this is NOT a bug, that we have to create an ECM account and have every single user log into ECM to be able to view attachments? Is this really true?
I can’t understand why an ECM login would be required to view the attachment but not to download the very same attachment. Make it make sense.
I think it is because it launches it in ECM instead of the native document format as opposed to the download. For right now we have them put in credentials and save so that it does not prompt every time.
Why would I want to consume an ECM license just to view a document that can just as easily be viewed in the browser? What is the value-add there? It’s clearly not for security, because they can already download that exact same document without providing ECM credentials. So there is no plan to fix this despite the PRB referenced above?
This is insane! A login was never required to view ECM documents before. So we’re supposed to license every user? I don’t think so.
This is what I am saying! I can’t understand.
Alisa, I’m chiming in late on this, but consider that ECM licenses are concurrent, not named, so it doesn’t matter how many people access ECM directly as long as there are no more concurrent requests as you have licenses (I think View-Only licenses are much cheaper if I recall correctly).
We have a very low number, and have never had an issue, but… we are accessing ECM directly for a lot of things, not via the Kinetic Web UI. (I’m assuming you’re in the Web UI from what I’m reading).
It is a bug that I am sure they will get sorted in time. In my 2023.1 test it tries to launch outside of ECM, but somehow (I guess) sees the guid in front of the name or some other issue and misses it is a pdf and then I get a windows message that it doesn’t find an app for a blob.
Did you report this?
I just don’t want people to have to log in at all.
I understand - I would not want that either.
Not knowing the Kinetic UI we’ll enough yet, I’m not sure if it works the same. I think the classic UI will ‘remember’ a user’s ECM login if the Storage Type definition specifies that it uses individual user logins so I’m wondering if the Kinetic UI (even Web) would do that same? Get them to log in once and then not again - or get everything converted to SSO with Azure?
Yes according to support they only have to login once. But I do not want to create dozens of ECM logins. Nor do I want a shared login (talk about pointless). You should just be able to view the attachments which the user is already authorized to do by virtue of being logged into kinetic - it just shouldn’t be any more complicated than that. I’m worried that even when we do upgrade to 2023 where this is supposedlyl fixed, that it still won’t actually worked based on comments I am seeing above.
It works fine in 2023.1.6 in Classic and Web UI.
No, but I will update from .5 to .6 in my sandbox and see if it works since @jkane is not having an issue there.
