0

on
Category:
STATUS DETAILS

Comments

RE:

Dirk Kemps on 3/9/2022 7:47:00 AM

While working on it, it would be nice to ALSO add the construction year (text, so equals "version") as an option.

Category:

RE:

Shivam Shukla on 3/9/2022 6:30:53 AM

This would be helpful to us at the time of development.

Category:

RE:

Divjot Nanda on 3/9/2022 6:25:40 AM

it will be very helpful.

Because of this, we have to use a Physical table and system performance goes down by that.


Category:

RE:

Bhavy Gupta on 3/9/2022 6:21:42 AM

This would really helps.

Category:

RE:

Pankaj Sharma on 3/9/2022 6:16:30 AM

This would be really helpful for us.

Category:

RE:

Geetanjali Kandhari on 3/9/2022 6:14:18 AM

This would extremely help us all.

Category:

RE:

Vaibhav Nagar on 3/9/2022 4:54:12 AM

This would be helpful.

Category:

RE:

Justin C on 3/9/2022 4:30:01 AM

Just came to post the same idea but I'll upvote this one instead.


Currently we have D365 instance used by both our sales and engineering teams. There is no easy way for use to manage the SP permissions to restrict access to the confidential contract documents.


Even if full permission replication wasn't an option. One easier solution would be to allow us to set a default SP location per entity, currently it can only be set globally. That way we could restrict teams to their own SP site based on entities which would work for us in this instance. Full permission replication would be the most ideal solution, but this could be an interim one.

Category:

RE:

Gemma Johnston on 3/9/2022 4:01:15 AM

agree, this functionality is still needed

Category:

RE:

Lak Chahal on 3/8/2022 9:20:36 PM

This would extremely help.

Category:

  • 1 …
  • 488
  • 489
  • 490
  • 491
  • 492
  • 493
  • 494
  • 495
  • 496
  • … 500