Inconsistent display of hierarchies in fieldlist

[Sjoerd]

OLAP dimensions  are not displayed consistently in the field chooser in RadPivotFieldList. Dimensions with a multi-level hierarchy are displayed directly below the dimension name (see Publication date in the attached example), but single-level hierarchies are shown under 'more fields'.  When displaying the same cube in Microsoft SSMS both types are displayed in the same way.

Thanks
Sjoerd

[Peter]

Hi Sjoerd,

Thank you for writing.

We decided to display the "user" hierarchies in flat mode and attribute hierarchies are displayed in the "More Fields" node. We follow this field order from Excel because we think that is more suitable and convenient.

As you probably know, RadPivotGrid is still in beta and we appreciate any feedback you can provide. 

Kind regards,
Peter
the Telerik team

[Sjoerd]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your reply.

I can understand the decision to display suer hierarchies and attribute hierarchies in a different manner, and indeed Excel does so too.

However, in my example I use only user attribute hierarchies. The issue I raised was that Telerik's FieldList displays a user hierarchy as if it were an attribute hierarchy if that hierarchy has only a single level.

I have attached a screenshot of Excel displaying the same field list. Note the highlighted 'Hierarchy' under 'Request'. I also attach a screenshot of (trivial) dimension structure, showing that 'Hierarchy' is truly a user hierarchy.

Hope this helps,
Sjoerd

PS. I realize PivotGrid is still in beta, hence my attempt to get things fixed before final release :-)
If you prefer me to contact support instead of using the forum, please do let me know.

[Peter]

Hi Sjoerd,

I can confirm that there is an issue related to user hierarchies placed in wrong place (for example More Fields). We are aware of this and we will do our best to fix it for the official release.

Generally, the best way to report an issue it to do it as bug report, however, even if you use the forums it will be logged accordingly.

Thank you again for the cooperation.

All the best,
Peter
the Telerik team