Johan Van Assel
My feedback
45 results found
-
26 votesJohan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesJohan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesJohan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesJohan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesJohan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesJohan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
6 votes
Great ideas! The goal is the simplify the physical location to either measured (as-built) or designed locations of pond outfalls, while either logically enforcing the relationship of outfalls to pond/outlet without forced links that do not represent physical pipes.
Johan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesJohan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesJohan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesJohan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesJohan Van Assel
shared this idea
·
-
2 votesJohan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
7 votesJohan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesJohan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
16 votesJohan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesJohan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesJohan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
3 votes
Thank you for this request.
There are already settings available for database creation permissions which can be implemented using the snumbat.ini file.
Specifically there is a keyword “AllowDatabaseCreation” where a setting of 0 means creation is disallowed and a settings of 1 means creation is allowed. The Workgroup Data Server Administration document which can be requested from Innovyze talks through these steps and provides examples for the snumbat.ini files.
When it comes to the updating of databases, is this to restrict the ability to update from a particular software version database to a later one or rather to prevent update to the contents of the database please?
Thanks,
PascalAn error occurred while saving the comment Johan Van Assel
shared this idea
·
-
37 votes
We have spent quite a bit of time investigating how validation improvements might be achieved, whether that be through validation as a background task or whether it be with improvements on the speed of validation in the first place.
There is no silver bullet which has been identified so far, the validation is already very efficient with minimal potential for speed improvements and there are issues with it as a background task as previously mentioned which we haven’t got fully fledged solutions to yet.
Johan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
-
15 votes
Thank you for the addition of this request, we are in discussions about how this might be achieved as the level of awareness of tasks is varied between agents. Would a dashboard showing who sent which simulation where (which are still ongoing) be sufficient? This would be without the progress those simulations have already made available as a first step.
Johan Van Assel
supported this idea
·
Hi Pascal,
Thanks for commenting. By updating I mean to a higher software version (but in the end this is also a content update and hence in my view should not be done by somebody who has no write permissions on that database). I'll have a look through the document and see if this can help for the other issues.