cancel

Discrepancy cataloguing metadata fields

Highlighted
_KC_
Respected Contributor.

Discrepancy cataloguing metadata fields

Hi all

 

Attached to a record type we have a mandatory string field called 'Document Type' where users must select a predefined document type from a lookup set (i.e. Report, Incoming Correspondence, Memo etc).

 

Everything works hunky dory except that in some TRIM users will manually type the document type in (lets say 'report' for this scenario), fill in the other mandatory fields, TRIM will do its spellcheck and check that the user has filled in all mandatory fields, then spit out a TRIM number.

 

Everything appears to be hunky dory - except that the user has typed in the word 'report' instead of 'Report' with a capital R. TRIM has accepted the word 'report' but doesn't seem to correct it so it is identical to the word that is listed as part of the look up set (i.e. with the capital R). This does not just happen with 'report' but with all the document types that we have listed.

 

Is there something that has been missed in the creation of the document type or lookup set? Or is this a known problem with metadata fields? I have checked everything I can think of - even the individual access controls on look up items.

 

We are using TRIM 6.2.4.1236

 

Any suggestions or advice?

3 REPLIES
TRIMGuru
Acclaimed Contributor.

Re: Discrepancy cataloguing metadata fields

This is the same behaviour I'm seeing also.  So no, you're not missing anything. It's just the way it is.

Neil Summers
HPE Expert

Re: Discrepancy cataloguing metadata fields

Yeah I think you'll find it's always worked this way. Considering searching in TRIM is never case-sensitive, it's only an aesthetic thing really.


Neil

Note: Any posts I make on this forum are my own personal opinion and (unless explicitly stated) do not constitute a formal commitment on behalf of HPE.

(Please state the version of CM you're using in all posts.

HPE Software Support Online (SSO): https://softwaresupport.hpe.com/
_KC_
Respected Contributor.

Re: Discrepancy cataloguing metadata fields

Bummer. Thanks anyway guys for your input - much appreciated.