Moving files that are in other Reader's Queues
- Elizabeth Storrs
Slate Instance | TUH |
Requestor | Laura Felch |
Date | Dec 19, 2023 |
Status | COMPLETE |
Summary Description | find workaround for "this application currently resides in more than one queue. This application cannot be sent to a different bin or user until the other reviews have been completed" |
Detailed description of desired deliverable:
GSBS process has Program Directors moving files of people from the Committee column into the Interview (or Deny) bins. This is an issue if anyone else has those files in their queue:
Research:
feedback request to separate out the assign and move files permission from the Application Update: https://feedback.technolutions.com/forums/923530-slate/suggestions/38531248-make-edit-bin-queue-permission-separate-from-ap
https://knowledge.technolutions.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002371132-Reader-Popup-Dashboards and https://knowledge.technolutions.com/hc/en-us/articles/4404356484763-Workflows#h_01H918M323PJB2FEVQPH3AQKNQ have directions for adjusting the merge fields in the Reader , but not the links.
What about a script for hiding links?
There is a give the Admissions Directors Application Update permissions, which is where edit queue/bin permission lives. This is the easiest/least work, but has the highest risk.
The issue is that gives them lots of other extra permissions, as you can see by the other links in that menu.
Also, program directors would have permissions to move to any of the listed bins. Once they are in the new bin, though, if it is a bin the faculty does not have permission to, they have effectively lost the application!
build a submission condition on the form that allows submission of the form/movement of bins based on something...maybe literally the role of the person doing the moving. I do not know how difficult this is, but it is something I can try to make work.
Clear the queue by rule once a review form has been submitted. This means faculty cannot use the queue as a place to hold on to applications of interest, but does maintain the requirement for a form.
Outcome:
Email sent to Laura on 12/20 summarizing these three options. Potentially worth reviewing/watching for Slate updates on this.