Add "Inverse" checkbox on "Select entity based on cube"

Nicolas CHIGROS

1. What is your idea?
 
 Add "Inverse" checkbox on "Select entity based on cube"


 
2. What specific problem are you trying to find a solution to, or what new scenario would this idea respond to?
 
Exemple of use: 

• Display members that are yet to be done, to be inputed,  or yet not processed in the workflow
• Display member that have no value (turnover, quantity etc...) for the users to verify

 
Improvement :

• Reducing the number of one "screen used" cube
• reduce time spent to processing cube, developing procedure and reducing trigger in screens.

 
3. What workaround have you found and used so far (if any)?

Calculate a buffer cube to be the opposite (set you dimension to dense otherwise you spoil your sparsity)
Update 2022/11/10 :

• New web snapshot 
• Still relevant idea 4 years later

Monisha Jain

Hi Nicolas, Thanks for sharing. We appreciate your idea.

In the SUMMER 2023 release, we are going to enhance the temporary cubes usage in procedures. The temp cube can be used in 'Select' based on 'IF-THEN-ELSE' and many other cases. The inverse can be calculated on the fly with the temp cube without storing data into the physical one.

You can find more information on this through our Board Manual.

Nicolas CHIGROS

Hello Monisha,

Thank you for the feedback.

You changed the idea from "Open For Voting" to "Planned" but from your comment I don't understand if :

• It's planned as describe in the snapshot but in the meantime you provide an updated workaround to mine.
• Or you consider the better workaround close "enough" to what I describe

Can you clarify?

Thanks,

Nicolas CHIGROS

Monisha Jain

Sure Nicolas.

To clarify: Your mentioned workaround is the answer. The enhancement as proposed in the snapshot will not be implemented, as we have the enhancement on the temporary cubes planned for the next version and onwards which will be able to solve your need.

Nicolas CHIGROS

https://community.board.com/discussion/comment/14034#Comment_14034

Ok, it's disappointing then.

So can you revert the status to "Open for voting"?

The "new" workaround is barely an improvement to my initial workaround and his still a workaround compared to the proposed idea.

Thanks.

Nicolas CHIGROS

Sorry to insit ,

But slightly improvement to a workaround is quite different to implementing the idea describe so can you revert the status to "Open for voting"?

The features you described are great but they bring a minor improvement to my use case.

Thanks