When creating a report, it is common in certain scenarios for the user to desire to customize the actual instance data returned by the report. These customizations include renaming items/editing values, re-ordering items, creating ad-hoc groupings of items, and collapsing multiple items into a single item. While making such changes manually is fairly straightforward in a spreadsheet or similar application, such an approach can be difficult to repeat, reverse, and audit. With some reporting applications, the user is also able to make such changes to the data, but the changes cannot be audited and are lost the next time the report is run.
Various technologies and techniques are disclosed for persisting instance-level report customizations. Input is received from a user to run an original report. An original query associated with the original report is executed against a data store. The original report is displayed to the user. At least one instance-level customization is received from the user to customize the instance data of the original report. The instance-level customizations that the user makes to the customized report are tracked in a manner that allows a history of changes from the original report to the customized report to be determined. The customized report is generated in subsequent executions of the report. The instance-level changes the user made to the report can be audited to allow users to see the changes made to the original report.
This Summary was provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This Summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter.
For the purposes of promoting an understanding of the principles of the invention, reference will now be made to the embodiments illustrated in the drawings and specific language will be used to describe the same. It will nevertheless be understood that no limitation of the scope is thereby intended. Any alterations and further modifications in the described embodiments, and any further applications of the principles as described herein are contemplated as would normally occur to one skilled in the art.
The system may be described in the general context as a report builder application, but the system also serves other purposes in addition to these. In one implementation, one or more of the techniques described herein can be implemented as features within a program such as MICROSOFT® SQL Server Report Builder, or from any other type of program or service that allows a user to create and/or manipulate reports.
As shown in
Additionally, device 100 may also have additional features/functionality. For example, device 100 may also include additional storage (removable and/or non-removable) including, but not limited to, magnetic or optical disks or tape. Such additional storage is illustrated in
Computing device 100 includes one or more communication connections 114 that allow computing device 100 to communicate with other computers/applications 115. Device 100 may also have input device(s) 112 such as keyboard, mouse, pen, voice input device, touch input device, etc. Output device(s) 111 such as a display, speakers, printer, etc. may also be included. These devices are well known in the art and need not be discussed at length here. In one implementation, computing device 100 includes report builder application 200. Report builder application 200 will be described in further detail in
Turning now to
Report builder application 200 includes program logic 204, which is responsible for carrying out some or all of the techniques described herein. Program logic 204 includes logic for allowing a user to create and execute a report 206; logic for displaying a report to the user in an original format 208; logic for allowing a user to make instance-level customizations to a report 210; logic for tracking instance-level customizations a user makes to the report (e.g. by modifying and annotating the original query or by creating a wrapper query) 212; logic for generating the report in the modified format in subsequent executions of the report 214; logic for displaying a report to the user in the modified format 216; logic for allowing a user to audit the report to see the original version and/or the customizations 218; and other logic for operating the application 220. In one implementation, program logic 204 is operable to be called programmatically from another program, such as using a single call to a procedure in program logic 204.
Turning now to
The procedure begins at start point 240 with the user creating an original report designed to answer a particular question (without customizations) and selecting an option to run the report (stage 242). The system receives the user input, executes the original query against data store, and generates report (stage 244). The system displays the report to the user (stage 246). The user customizes the report and the system receives the user customizations (stage 248). The system tracks changes the user makes to the report so the report with the customizations can be recreated and the series of changes can be audited (stage 250). The system creates a modified query for the changes (e.g. persists the modifications) (stage 251). The user (same or different user) selects an option to run the report again (stage 252). The system generates the report in the modified format (stage 254). The modified report is displayed to the user (stage 255). The process ends at end point 256.
Let's take a look at a non-limiting hypothetical example of how this could work. Given an instance Q immediately following the new position of ZYX Corp., the new sort field has a custom formula that returns one of three values:
The modified query is used to generate subsequent versions of the report that includes the changes to the sort order of the instance groups (stage 326). The process ends at end point 328.
The modified query is used to generate subsequent versions of the report that includes the ad-hoc groupings of the items (stage 346). The process ends at end point 348.
Turning now to
Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described above. Rather, the specific features and acts described above are disclosed as example forms of implementing the claims. All equivalents, changes, and modifications that come within the spirit of the implementations as described herein and/or by the following claims are desired to be protected.
For example, a person of ordinary skill in the computer software art will recognize that the client and/or server arrangements, user interface screen content, and/or data layouts as described in the examples discussed herein could be organized differently on one or more computers to include fewer or additional options or features than as portrayed in the examples.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5303146 | Ammirato et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
| 5539903 | Kaplan et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5630122 | Kaplan et al. | May 1997 | A |
| 6397207 | Bleizeffer et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6490620 | Ditmer et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6631402 | Devine et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6698013 | Bertero et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6850932 | de Judicibus | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 7409398 | Flam et al. | Aug 2008 | B1 |
| 20020133488 | Bellis et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020194186 | Ode | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20040117731 | Blyashov | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040158563 | Pawlowski et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20050114308 | Hyland et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050253874 | Lal et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20060080594 | Chavoustie et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060085738 | Chapus et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060143243 | Polo-Malouvier et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20070011211 | Reeves et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070055688 | Blattner | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2264321 | Sep 2000 | CA |
| WO 2005081126 | Sep 2005 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Lane, Paul, Oracle® Database, Data Warehousing Guide 10g Release 1 (10.1), Part No. B10736-01, Dec. 2003 http://stanford.edu/dept/itss/docs/oracle/10g/server.101/b10736.pdf. |
| Jewett, Tom, “SQL technique: subqueries”, Database design with UML and SQL © 2005, Archived Dec. 16, 2005. |
| Bortoluzzi, et al., “A Clinical Report Management System based upon the DICOM Structured Report Standard”, The Computer Society, Proceedings of the 16th IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS'03), ISBN: 0-7695-1901-6, Jun. 26-27, 2003, pp. 183-188. |
| Chan, Daniel K.C. “A Document-driven Approach to Database Report Generation”, Marie Curie Fellowship from the European Commission (ERBFMBICT960653), Database and Expert Systems Applications, 1998. Proceedings. Ninth International Workshop, ISBN: 0-8186-8353-8, Aug. 25-28, 1998, pp. 925-930. |
| Tarassenko, et al., “System for database reports generating”, Science and Technology, 2001. KORUS '01, Proceedings. The Fifth Russian-Korean International Symposium, ISBN: 0-7803-7008-2, vol. 1, Jun. 26-Jul. 3, 2001, pp. 84-88. |
| Petropoulos, et al., “XML Query Forms (XQForms): Declarative Specification of XML Query Interfaces”, ACM 1-58113-348-0/01/0005, Enosys Markets Inc., May 1-5, 2001, pp. 642-651. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20070256006 A1 | Nov 2007 | US |