Shape the future of FME with your ideas
Open ideas have been reviewed by our Product Management and are open for commenting and voting.
I fully understand that Safe wants to make the sending of Success or Failure emails in FME Flow Automations more granular. But the big issue for a lot of us users is that we are at a severe disadvantage due to limitations our IT faces with getting the whole SMTP info set up correctly in FME Flow Automations. For this reason alone, I think it would be useful for there to be a basic emailer that can provide us users with an option for actually being able to use FME Flow Automations and send the one thing we need … An email with success or failure info. As for our company (And I’m sure this is the case at a lot of companies) we can’t use FME Flow Automations and that’s a real waste considering we have a lot of uses for them. Sadly, the Emailer has become the major dealbreaker for us. It’s out of our control as users and wish there was a viable easy option to just have an emailer that can send without having to be tied to a company’s email server.
In an Automation email action, we would like to use deployment parameters to set the following parameters:SMTP Server SMTP Server Port SMTP Account SMTP Password Connection security (less important)Motivation: we have clients with an important number of automations that use the “Email (send)” external action. When the smtp server settings change, e.g. between DEV and PROD environments, it’s a significant amount of manual and error-prone work to change these settings consistently in all the automations. It would be a big help if these settings could be set using deployment parameters:
It would be nice to be able to use ArcGIS web connection to authenticate processes when using the ArcPy library
The following improvements to Role Based Security would be useful:1.Increased Granularity for Job Viewing and Job Management PermissionsI need the ability to allow users to see specific other user’s jobs and logs rather than all jobs and logs. We use different service accounts for different enterprise projects and currently I am having to share all jobs/logs with users so they can monitor their processes. Since not all groups need to see each other’s jobs this is not the best solution. (Thank you Safe for new search options in 2019 as they slightly help with this issue.)Likewise, in the current Role system being able to view all jobs requires job management permissions which let users cancel jobs in the queue or terminate running jobs. This puts me in a difficult position regarding how we implement SOX compliance. It is preferred users be locked out from managing running production processes. If the ability to view all logs but not manage jobs was made available that would be a move in a positive direction. If the option to say kill queued jobs but not running jobs was an option that may also be useful.2. Additional Options on Database ConnectionsHaving a Read option alongside the Full Control option for database connections would be excellent. I am seeing issues when I grant users access to connections without giving them full control over a connection. Since we have many processes using the same named database connection it is not ideal to grant users management access since one incorrect change by any user with access could disrupt jobs for all users using the connection. Something similar to how the Notification items are broken out would be amazing.3. Automatic Content Sharing with Administrator AccountsIt would be helpful if FME Server automatically shared user created content with members of the Super User role. If this could be an option for the FME Admin role that would also be appreciated. I have a plethora of users creating content and when they ask for help it is cumbersome to have to share their content with myself and my fellow Admins before I can help troubleshoot.
My organization recently migrated from Apache ActiveMQ to Apache Artemis due to ActiveMQ vulnerabilities and we had to migrate an automation to a different workflow since there is currently no support for Artemis.
Whenever one uses an SQLExecutor for inserting, updating and deleting rows (collectively known as DML statements), it is usually handy to know how many rows have actually been affected by that operation. I am by no means the first person to want to do that with FME.All DBMS I can think of have at least some way of exposing that information.Postgres returns a command status tag with the command type and affected row count, Oracle has the SQL%ROWCOUNT variable which countains the number of affected row in for the last query in a PL/SQL block, Snowflake stores and exposes query result stats on a per-statement basis, JDBC drivers have both the Statement.executeUpdate() and the Statement.getUpdateCount() methods returning the affected row count, ODBC drivers have the SQLRowCount functionMost notably, none of these are exposed in a way that an FME user could make use of, as they are part of some interface that extends beyond SQL statements. Most workarounds will involve a much slower operation, such as WITH (INSERT … RETURNING *) SELECT COUNT(*) or something similar.It would be nice if FME could return some output feature for DML SQL statements where the affected row count (potentially separated between updated, deleted and inserted, for databases that keep track of them separately, like Snowflake during an upsert).
Hi,the birds are chirping that Bentley is soon to phase out ProjectWise login via logical accounts. It would be nice if there was an option to connect to PW via IMS login as a transformer or an option to configure the connection in the settings
It would be great if we had the ability to set the orientation of the Junction objects in workbench. This would help when the direction of features were heading downward or even from right to left. At the moment I need to live with this kind of look (see image) and I wish i could just rotate the junction 180 degrees in this case.
Hi there, When using readers in a larger workspace, sometimes I might need to reference the reader (or a bookmark involving the reader after some post processing like changing coordinate system or renaming some attributes) multiple times in the workspace, either at the start, middle, or end. If something is being used, say 5 times, and crosses multiple bookmarks and transformers, I will use hidden connections to keep things readable, however it can still be a hassle if I need to use a certain reader/transformer/junction that is at a certain place in a large workspace, where I might currently be working in another area. I will then need to zoom out and scroll to it, and then drag the connection all the way over to where I want to use it. A way to get around this, is to have the ability to pin readers/transformers/junctions that are used a lot in a workspace and have many connections already, so that if it needs to be used again, you can simply connect to it wherever it is pinned in the window (and then can unpin it again after that if preferred), so that you can connect to any part of a workspace from any other location without having zoom in and out and scroll and repeat, just to create one connection Cheers!
Edit: Got the header of the post wrong but i cant change it. Should of course beTunnels: allow 1..N and N..1 connections Allow more efficient and cleaner workspace design with one-to-many connections for tunnels. Ideally if there is a 1..N or N..1 connection between transformers, one should be able to select all connections → right click → convert all connections to tunnels. The expected layout would be according to picture below. The N-side of the connection would only have one junction instead of N amount of junctions. Layout wise it is already achievable. It does however require many clicks as well as playing with alignment and placing tunnel junctions on top of each other. Therefore it is easy to snap connections by mistake.
I often want to view the source data is the native software and open it from FME Form via Open Containing Folder, then open that file. My suggestion is to add an option to open that file in the native Windows program, e.g. ‘View Source Data’ in native, or ‘Open in Native’ so you remove a step. If the file was a DWG it would auto-open in whatever Windows/user has assigned to open a DWG, e.g.AutoCAD 2027. If it’s a CSV, it opens in Excel (or Notepad++ for example) if that’s what the user has set. Thanks.
hi there, it could be a good idea to be able to add pinned annotations on a workbench for important messages or things to keep in mind for a workbench, so that no matter where you scroll in the workbench the pinned annotation will show in the exact same place. Ideally the annotations would be around the sides of the workspace frame
When using a Dynamic featureWriter with the PostGIS format you can handle the FeatureType geometry these ways :From first feature From schema definition Define one specific geometry typeNone of them are really satisfying for me :From first feature : if you have multiple datatypes you need to order your features or to coerce them leading to the second one From schema definition : no fme_geometry maps cleanly PostGIS geometry types (no support for multicurves or multisurfaces) Define one specific geometry type : not dynamicIt could be great to use a specific attribute : fme_native_geometry_type to define wich geometry type to use in a dynamic writer.This could be for any format (not just for PostGIS but I need it for PostGIS 😉) This could be populated by readers You could provide some transformers : to set this parameter depending on the feature geometry to set manually this parameter (choose format and then geometry type) to coerce geometries as defined by this parameter
Summary Annotations contain a lot of information, and therefore take up a lot of screen space. On the other hand, summary annotations dynamically display the settings of a transformer, which can be better than using static Annotation.Therefore it would be nice to have the possibility to select what information is shown in a Summary Annotation.This would have the benefit of showing only the settings the user deems relevant, while at the same time automatically updating this information when these settings are changed.
It would be nice to add tunnels to FME Flow Automations like you can with FME Form workspaces. It would help organize complex automations and make them fit better in the UI.
There’s various suggestions out there explaining how to get the number of features written during an automation:https://support.safe.com/hc/en-us/articles/25407494315789-FME-Flow-Get-the-Count-of-Features-Written-in-an-Automation However, these processes seem a bit complicated given that the count exists in the log for the workspace. Maybe I am wrong and it would be very complicated to access this number.For the “Run a Workspace” action, I would like to have “Total Features Written” included within Output Attribute → Success → Event Attribute:This would allow it to be utilized in downstream actions such as emailing.Also, you would be able to use it within custom attributes and that would eliminate the need for additional workspaces, automation writers, split-merge blocks and http requests.
When a Flow App is created there is an option to customize it by adding header, footer and icon images. Often this will be a company logo or something that is common to all Apps.Currently, the images for each App need to be uploaded individually.It would be great to be able to reference a file from a Flow Resources location to avoid repeated uploading of the same image(s) for each App.
The current customization options for FME Flow Apps is quite poor. FME Flow Apps have the potential to be a centralised focal point/application for organisational/enterprise level ETL; however, they currently allow for minimal flexibility and design when it comes to styling.The lack of flexibility and options for design improvements mean that even with greatest graphics/design eye in the world, FME Flow Apps are often left looking nothing more than a data dropzone, workspace runner or ‘Click to Download’ link.Expanding the options for image customization and editing, greater flexibility in text design, or incorporating HTML would greatly enhance the visual appeal of FME Flow Apps. This would increase visibility and improve perceptions to none FME users who are given access to a Flow App.Documentation could also be created in the form of a technical article on ‘Designing and Styling an FME Flow App for your Organization’ to support this process.
Currently in FME Flow Automations, when using the “Run Workspace” action, the job queue must be selected from a fixed list of predefined queues. There is no ability to dynamically select the job queue using a published parameter or automation attribute.This enhancement proposes adding support for parameter-driven job queue selection, allowing users to pass a value (e.g., from an automation attribute or published parameter, etc.) to determine which job queue is used at runtime.
Probably most relevant for workspaces started through an app or webhook: Restrict the number of runs. I.e. if it's been triggered more than x times in y amount of time, or if there are more than x non-unique triggers, don't run the workspace.The main reason: one of the Flow's we're managing was recently hit by a DDOS attack, within the space of a few hours one particular workspace app was triggered about 4500 times. The workspace failed right away every time due to bad input, but it still took 1-2 seconds to do so, so that did eat up a big chunk of the capacity during those hours.Another reason would be to prevent a user from re-submitting a job if it's taking too long. They might think something is wrong so they try again, and again, and again.
A parameter is like an argument that is static. A variable, however, represents a state and can be dynamically created and assigned in a workspace. I wish FME workspace UI exposes variables the same way it exposes parameters or attributes. Converting variables to attributes via VariableRetriever does not help, as attributes are about content while variables are about states and flow control.I am in agreement with @bambography in his or her post. https://knowledge.safe.com/questions/34563/can-global-variables-be-accessed-as-values-in-tran.html
To Clear the entire feature cache a user has to go to the first transformer, right click it and select clear data cache. Or start and stop the translation quickly.I’d like the option to clear the entire cache when I right click anywhere in the canvas and additionally a clear cache button in the toolbar would be nice.This would help speed up the development process and improve user workflow for a feature that already exists but could be improved.
Currently a User Parameter of type Choice can be configured as a drop-down, and the user is permitted to edit the choice, or it can be defined as a list or tree and allow multiple selection. But it cannot be both multi-select and allow choice edit.I would like the ability for the user to add values to the tree view in multi-select mode.
I’m trying to write features to an esri feature service, but getting “fatal errors” from the feature service that is causing the entire FME workspace to fail. I should be allowed to decide what to do if a “fatal error”, much in the same way that I can choose how to handle rejected features (Terminate Translation or Continue Translation).FME should just “fail” that single request and continue writing features out. Examples of where this would be useful:
When using a FME Server App which fails for some reason there is no built in way to return an error message to the user. It is always an unknown problem.It would be great if there was a way to return a few more details to the user. This is particularly important when an invalid dataset is uploaded. Without a workaround there is currently no way to let the user know their data needs to be fixed.
In-depth courses for all FME skill levels.
Explore our extensive collection of how-to guides and tutorials.
Log an issue with us. Our support team is ready to help.
