đź‘‹ Use this site to provide feedback and ideas for all Nintex Products. See our post on Nintex Community "Welcome to Nintex Ideas" for more details on Nintex Ideas, how an idea is handled by our product teams and more!
If you are looking for the Nintex roadmap, you can find that on Nintex Community
If you have questions about Nintex Ideas, please contact ideas@nintex.com
If you require support, please visit Nintex Customer Central
If you have a sales inquiry, please contact sales@nintex.com
The last reply here was 15 months ago for what one would believe to be a low level change to allow for bulk archive/deleting.
(1) to provide a comment when requesting archive of a document/process. When a user requires a process to be archived we need to know if it is to be deleted or saved for potential reference by Regulators and Audit at a later date.
(2) to create groups under the Archive folder to store those processes that are archived but are not be deleted would be awesome.
So for a process with lots of screenshots (images) that needs to be archived, we would have to archive the process then go and archive all the screenshots separately.
A check box asking if all attached documents need to be archived as well would be a good enhancement in that case, would save a LOT of valuable time.
I would also like to add that any documents and images should be archived at the same time, when you archive a process the images and documents still remain in the library. There should be an option to remove all images and documents using a checkbox or at least archive them. Of course the person requesting the archive we need to be 100% certain those documents or images are not used in any other processes before they are removed from the library.
Where there are documents attached a simple check box to tick if it requires archive would be appropriate. In the case where a document is linked to other processes which are not selected for archive, it should default to not archive.
I agree it would be very beneficial to see overall process linkages across an organisation. We don't have this on our roadmap right now but we'll monitor voting on this idea.
Regarding the linkages for archiving - we do have plans to allow archiving without removing the linkages first.
Apologies for the delay, and thank you for your patience and understanding.
ive found it impossible to archive processes with variations, i actually just want to delete them as they were created as a test.
Would you please add to the archive feature an option to 'keep' or 'delete'. At the moment we are retaining processes in a folder within the group area, so we can retain them for audit or regulation purposes. This also means I need to set permissions on that group within the group to stop those 'retention' processes showing in the search.
At the moment we are changing the titles to include - KEEP or DELETE - this is not ideal but the only way for me to know immediately whether a process should be retained or removed completely.
It would be better practice to provide the option to add those retention processes to a group within the 'Archive' library that doesn't need lock down permissions because they are hidden from search.
You should be able to archive 'in progress' (unpublished) maps if links in or to other maps have been removed.
I had the situation where to archive one 'in progress' map, I would need to remove the links, then publish 3 'in progress' maps, export an earlier version of 2 of them, archive all 3 maps and then import the 2 maps back again. This is ridiculous.