Rick Cogley 6/27/2010 8:04:10 AM
Yes, absolutely. This is an important feature to have. You would think that it would be possible to mailmerge from an MS SQL db to Word. Of course, you can export to CSV, then merge that into word, but it is pretty klunky to do that. Much cooler if you can just select multiple records and hit the doc button...
Gii Systems 9/28/2010 2:32:27 PM
Can we not get the workflow to acheive this? It would be great if we could have an action button/selection option, that will generate documents for all selected records.
Bulk/Batch printing will be extremely usefull.
Shem Sargent 1/5/2012 3:58:37 PM
I have to say that after digging into this platform that has delighted me in many other ways, I am surprised to find that the simple functionality to "mail merge" on selected records is missing. How annoying for users to have to view each record independantly to print a form letter. I really hope that this gets implemented soon.
Desmond Beatty (Conc) 2/7/2014 7:11:48 AM
The inability to batch process is a real practical/business weakness in TeamDesk resulting in increased mindless labor.
Here is the automation requirement as we see it:
Select records. The following two methods are required:
1. Filter all records not previously printed/processesd
2. Mark specific records for printing/processing (allows for repeat processing if required)
Launch process, allowing for the marking each record as processed (timestamp/other as required).
The result should be all documents printed to a printer in one go.
ie should not have to print one doc/record at a time from MS Word.
At minimum, TD should consolidate all the docs in to one large doc with relevant breaks.
I note its score has gone to 160 putting it at or near the top-10 in the "New Ideas" listing.
An idea whose time has come?
basenine 2/7/2014 7:46:29 AM
The only work around at the moment is to email them to yourself...
Desmond Beatty (Conc) 2/11/2014 11:21:12 AM
I have managed to batch print and mark/control as follows:
1. Created a "document" with merge codes and desired format for required table.
2. Created a view that filters to the required records.
3. Added a "multi-record table view" button to that view that allows select all via the action checkbox, and, when the button is pressed, assigns a timestamp and emails the "document" out as an attachment.
4. Receive the email in Outlook with an Add-in that supoprts the custom action "Auto Print Attachment"
5. used Outlook Rules&Actions to auto print on receipt.
Now I want to prevent display of the original "document" button on the view form to prevent users from bypassing my new print process.
This may be all that is requierd to implement this idea.
basenine 2/11/2014 3:56:28 PM
How about dropping the records from that list/view when the email time stamp is "not isblank"....
Slava Shinderov 2/11/2014 4:04:34 PM
@Desmond please use following custom formula in your document filter property: false
Desmond Beatty (Conc) 2/12/2014 4:26:51 AM
@all - based on the above, I am currently of the view that I have a solution for batch printing that satisfies my requirements and does not require any changes to TeamDesk.
@Slava - thanks. It was not clear to me that the filter applied only to the button and not wider usage.
Desmond Beatty (Conc) 2/12/2014 4:30:53 AM
@basenine - exactly the prime purpose of the timestamp. I plan to deal with reprint requirements separately and, in this case, on a record by record basis.
basenine 2/12/2014 4:46:31 AM
The other view could be an ask the user based on email time stamp. The you can replicate
Lynne Manzo 1/24/2015 11:30:16 PM
Desmond's Outlook batch printing solution is working for us... thanks!
It is a very clever workaround, but the fact remains that it is a workaround.
It would be so much better if we could get document buttons, or better yet multi-view buttons on table view for generating documents without having to open each record individually, (or route the documents through Outlook).
Philipp Matuschka 1/28/2015 3:56:07 AM
I would like to add my impetus to Lynne's comment. This is coming around to being a pressing requirement for us again. Desmond's original solution was in fact done for one of our clients, but my current client will not accept it and in fact just laughed at the idea that a modern system requires such a workaround.
A solution from the TeamDesk team would be great at this time. This is a high scoring requirement which has been around for nearly 6 years. How about it?
Rebecca Sell 1/28/2015 3:58:40 AM
Supporting Philipp's comment above.
There are some basic requirements of a system - and this is one of them.
Gii Systems 1/29/2015 4:28:44 AM
+1 on this one. Please consider.
Stephen Welty 2/26/2015 1:54:04 PM
This would be very helpful.
Norman Houghton 6/23/2015 2:33:51 PM
Only been using Teamdesk for a month or two and have been really impressed with the system and the support.
Have just discovered this lack of a basic mail merge system, which is disappointing. Can't believe this has not been resolved after 6 years of asking!
Come on guys, surely this can't be too difficult to implement!
Tony Hawkins 7/19/2015 7:09:40 AM
as above please consider
Benjamin Hjort 10/19/2015 3:28:48 AM
Michael Ver Duin 4/8/2016 3:40:01 PM
Bumping this thread just as a reminder. Would be super helpful for our packing slips. We do them all at the same time so printing each one is a little cumbersome.
Philipp Matuschka 4/11/2016 3:51:57 PM
Get's my re-vote too.
Rick Cogley 5/5/2016 6:38:40 PM
Yes, as Michael Ver Duin points out this functionality would be perfect for printing pick-slips or pack-slips in an inventory warehouse management situation. Having to do it one by one is a showstopper, for all but the lowest volume situations.
Kirill Bondar 5/5/2016 6:48:38 PM
What if we implement this idea with one limitation - no details in such documents? Getting all the details data for every record would be a killer, but for single table it will work just fine in most cases - just like excel export?
basenine 5/5/2016 7:38:15 PM
Yes - that would work...even if we had to create a dummy record with the details required for printing (by drilling down deep with summary columns).
Your explanation clears up and simplifies the reason that it's pretty much impossible - and also suggests why the Print Doc buttons can't go in the VIEW EDIT DEL table section.
Would a Call to URL be possible via a multi workflow?
URLRoot() & "/documentopen.aspx/" & URLEncode(List("_","SPORETRAP",ToText([Sample No]),[CustomerName])&".docx") & "?d=xxx23&id=" & RecordId()
I tried it but it throws back an error...but am I missing something?
basenine 5/5/2016 7:39:25 PM
Limit of x records to print at any time, perhaps - to keep the processor from burning out!
Michael Ver Duin 5/5/2016 8:42:36 PM
I guess I'm not understanding what no details means.
basenine 5/5/2016 9:02:52 PM
It'd be related views details - at a guess...If that's the case, you'd need to bring through a bunch of summary values, with filters etc...could be messy...could work 😉
Philipp Matuschka 5/10/2016 2:47:29 AM
I would prefer to see it with details. My own example is invoice with invoice lines. Someone mentioned above packing slips which surely must have a parent record and detail lines.
martin oliver 5/10/2016 6:36:43 AM
We would use as per Philipp, picking slips parent records and detail lines
Kirill Bondar 5/31/2016 6:06:44 AM
Working on that
Philipp Matuschka 5/31/2016 6:23:45 AM
Great news. Looking forward to the end result
Kirill Bondar 6/1/2016 10:22:36 AM
With "Location" and "Views" properties documents are now in par with custom buttons. Beside multi-record documents you can now render document buttons for each row.
Hint: you may want to set "Page Break Before" for the first paragraph of multi-record documents to start each record on a new page.
basenine 6/1/2016 8:12:41 PM
Thanks to all
Lynne Manzo 6/2/2016 1:38:43 PM
Brilliant!!! Thank you SO MUCH. Works great & you've just saved us hours every month.
Philipp Matuschka 6/6/2016 5:47:41 AM
This is indeed excellent. Thank you very much.
It reminded me of something which raised some time in the last 2 years and which I notice Andrew Winters has raised something similar just in the last few days in respect of Custom Buttons. When selecting the location of the button (documents and custom buttons) it would be nice to have an additional option for "Preview Page & Multi Record".
I guess what Andrew is looking for is something like:
"Table View & Multi Record"
"Preview Page & Table View & Multi Record"
So in the end it might be easiest to have to have 3 check boxes
- Preview Page
- Table View
and then we check one or more of these. If none is checked then the document or custom button is disabled.
Philipp Matuschka 6/6/2016 5:54:54 AM
Kirill Bondar 6/14/2016 8:18:14 AM
We've adjusted multi-record document generation logic a bit. Now we check if all fields have top-level table row in common and if they have, we use this row as a template for each record - the approach is similar to what we do with detail records. This way header and footer of the table remain intact and we'll insert table rows in between. If there is no common table row, generation will proceed as before - by cloning document's body.
Also, multi-record mode no longer expands fields in document's header and footer. Previously we were expanding them with first record's data but it's a bit of nonsense since the result depends on an order the user selected the records.