TM1 Forum

Hi All,
I am a newbie to TM1. Am using TM1 9.5.1 and have a couple of probably very basic questions.
1. I have created drills on a Master cube. The drills were created with the Admin id and work with the Admin id but when I log in as another user, "Drill" appears disabled on the Master cube. Can some one help?
2. There is a "Status" column in the Clients/Groups interface. What is the meaning of "Status" and how do we set/change it? Some of the users that I have created have a status of "Active" and some have "Not Active". The system works fine for all functions for the "Not Active" users also. So what is the significance of "Not Active" status and how do users become "Active"?

Thanks,
Ashish

OK. Got the answer for 2nd question so pls do not bother for that one. I still need help on No. 1.

Thanks,
Ashish

Hi Ashish,

regarding your 1st question, just give them (another user) a read access in drill process.

Steps:
1. Go to View check the Display Object Options
2. Go to Processes right click > Security Assignments then look for user group and drill process (ex: }Drill_Master Cube)
then click Read option in Access Privileges then click OK button.

good luck!!!

Ania

Thanks a lot Ania.
I re-checked all the security/access privileged right from the cube to dimensions to elements - the whole 9 yard and never checked the Drill Access Privileges.
Why did I not see that??? I guess every one has a slip on the banana peel once in a while

cruzania wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:45 am Hi Ashish,

regarding your 1st question, just give them (another user) a read access in drill process.

Steps:
1. Go to View check the Display Object Options
2. Go to Processes right click > Security Assignments then look for user group and drill process (ex: }Drill_Master Cube)
then click Read option in Access Privileges then click OK button.

good luck!!!

Ania

Hello Sir, Regarding to what you said. my drill through process works very well on the architect with (any user) BUT on the PAW with(Admin user Only).

Is there a solution for this?

Best Regards.

Hector,

Do you allow users READ access to the }cubeDrill cube ?
SImilarly, READ access to the }Drill process ?

Wim

Wim Gielis wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:41 am Do you allow users READ access to the }cubeDrill cube ?
SImilarly, READ access to the }Drill process ?

Yes. In the old UIs using the C API the end user only needed READ access to the }Drill process. With the new Rest API the user also needs READ access to the }CubeDrill cube in addition.

Hi all,

On a related note (drills), I noticed that they work fine in PAW and PAX - provided we have at least 1 dimension in the rows AND in the columns. Frankly I don't see why this would be a requirement if this worked fine in TM1 Architect.

Another more difficult one: starting the drill from a cell using an alternative hierarchy (PA-speak) does not work. Does anyone have an idea how to tackle this ?
The drill process has parameter values for the element references of the cell, but if an element can be part of more than one hierarchy, we lack information on the name of the hierarchy. This means that a drill from a cell to level 0 (all descendants elements of the selected cell) becomes problematic.

Wim

Wim Gielis wrote: ↑Sun Nov 25, 2018 8:11 pm The drill process has parameter values for the element references of the cell, but if an element can be part of more than one hierarchy, we lack information on the name of the hierarchy. This means that a drill from a cell to level 0 (all descendants elements of the selected cell) becomes problematic.

Yes. This is exactly (one of) my problem(s) with support for hierarchies in rules!
We have the existing !dimension for the context of the element name but an equivalent !hierarchy to identify which hierarchy the element is currently being queried from is sorely lacking.

On the other point I'm guessing the requirement for a row and column dimensions comes from MDX. As MDX requires a dimension on column axis (and therefore also that you can't have a dimension on rows unless there is also a dimension specified on columns).

Spot on ! We need !Hierarchy for rules and also something similar for TI. Hopefully IBM is reading along.