Drill Through Report Not Receiving Defined Filter Values

Tal Mickel shared this problem 2 years ago
Resolved

Every time we want to create a report with a drill through, we must add the defined filter's field to the columns section (and hide them, since they're irrelevant) in order to move the defined values to the drill through report.


Is that a bug? or intentional feature?

Comments (5)

photo
1

Hi Tal,

I hope all is well,

I am not to sure what you mean exactly, would you be available for a remote session so you can show this in real time? If not I would be more than happy for you to send across some sort of steps/images t support this so I can get a better understanding. I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Mark

photo
1

Hey Mark, Dor Here


It's easy as it sounds - when you set up a report with a drill through, you then need to set up which values will move onto the report through "Related Report" section. You then choose the dimensions that will get ther values, either from the Filters section or the columns section. When you choose filters, and the filter has a defined value, it will not send its information to the drill through report.


We definitely can screenshare to show you this problem :)

Let us know when you're available

Our schedule is 0830 AM to 1730 UTC+03:00 (Jerusalem)


Thanks!

photo
1

Hi Dor,

Let's arrange a remote session for tomorrow, how does 10:30am Jerusalem time sound? This would be 08:30 UK Time I believe. Let me know if this is ok. I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Mark

photo
1

Sounds great Mark :) send me a link once ready

photo
1

Hi Dor,

Please see below for further information to our remote session;

https://meetings.ringcentral.com/j/1484510996

I will be available in 25 minutes time; 10:30am

Regards,

Mark

photo
1

Hi Dor,

I'm available now if you are around?

Regards,

Mark

photo
1

Hey I'm online now

photo
1

Hi Dor,

Thank you for our remote session this morning. This has helped, looking at this issue hands on it appears to be a bug, although I would need to replicate and then confirm this. Expect a reply back very soon. Once again thank you for your time this morning.

Regards,

Mark

photo
photo
1

Hi Dor,

Can you just confirm the exact build, would this be the 7.2 20170602? I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Mark

photo
1

Application Version: 7.2

Build: 20170602

Java Version: 1.8.0_51

photo
photo
1

Hi Dor,

I hope all is well and apologies for the delay in responding. I have discussed this further with my team and I have some feedback:

So the Master report has a hard-coded filter, say Gender = Female. You then want to pass this hard-coded filter value through to the Target report's filter. This is not currently possible because if you go to the Related Reports screen and look in the "Joins" section, you will see that there are no Master Filters available to pass through, only Master Fields.

With this we can then confirm that this is how Yellowfin has always been. This therefore is not a bug, although we can see what you are saying as you have a hard-coded filter value in the Master report, and you want to pass it through to the Target report, however Yellowfin only allows you to pass a Master Field, not a Master Filter and you would like to pass the Master Filter value.

Being honest we are not 100% sure why Yellowfin was designed this way - maybe because if you definitely know what the Master filter value is always going to be (because it is hard-coded) then you don't have pass it through! You can just hard-code it in the Target report as well.

To sum this up, the idea of the drill-through is that Yellowfin will pass whatever filter value the user decides to input at run-time. But in this case, the user doesn't decide on any filter value because it is already hard-coded. So the report writer should just hard-code the same filter value in the Target report as well.

I hope this makes sense Dor, if you need to clear anything up on this, then please do not hesitate to contact me as I would be happy to assist. I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Mark

photo
1

This is very clear Mark, thank you for the detailed explanation!


It does sounds to me like an idea, though.

It is a huge user experience dilemma, it makes me do the same action multiple times, and if I want, let's say, to create a universal-report which will be connected to multiple reports - I then have to multiply it as the number of reports in subject.


What do you think?

Bests,

Dor & Tal

photo
1

Hi Dor,

Thank you for the feedback, although most of the credit goes to Dave A, he assisted with this. With regards to having this as an Idea, I see where you are coming from, but I can't see how this would be implemented any time soon as this appears to be expected behaviour and how YF works.

Regards,

Mark

photo
1

Hey Mark !

Thank you for your reply. Well if it cannot be implanted soon, can it still a good idea and can be opened for future releases ?

photo
1

Hi Dor,

Apologies for the delay in replying. I will put something together so we can have this submitted as an idea, if you could assist with this by providing further information to support/push as an idea I would appreciate this greatly.

Regards,

Mark

photo
1

Hey Mark!


Well basically, you have a good case with us using 1 value fields and hide them to solve this problem.. it's not the most comfortable solution and sometimes makes our reports go slower than usual.

Can it help ?


Dor & Tal

photo
1

Hi Tal/Dor,

Apologies for the delay in responding, I have gone ahead and raised as an Idea, you can find this here. Please feel free to edit or add if any further information is needed.

Regards,

Mark

photo