Credentials Store/Sessions Store
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is a bug or a "feature", but in either case it doesn't make much sense (at least not to me).
In the navigation pane (when looking in Tree view) you have a separate group/store for Credentials and Sessions. This is as I think it would be - it doesn't necassarily follow that you you wish to organise your session as you would organise you Credentials, and the fact that you can apply credentials to a session group/folder or an individual session from any Credential location is great, especially were the same credentials apply to multiple places.
However, when you go to add a new Credential, then wish to assign this to a new folder within the Credentials group, RDM doesn't even show the Credentials Group but insitis on showing ONLY the Sessions group, and any folders you have created specifically in the Credentials group show up as part of the Sessions group. If you then create a folder in the Credentals Group, RDM add the same blank folder in the Session Group then I have to create credential in this group before if shows in the Credential Group. Once done, you then have to delete the blank folders in the session group.
This all seems a bit cumbersome.
Cheers
Chris
All Comments (3)
Hi Chris,
This is a limitation of our architecture. Let me start with the workaround first. If you want a group only for the credentials, you need to create an credential entry and type the Group directly in the entry. This will create the virtual group. For example you could create a series of group like that:
MyCredentials\Archives\2013
Now, why? It's because it's possible to display the credentials with the session. We have a setting in File->Options for that.
David Hervieux
Hi David,
Are you talking about the option in "User Interface --> Tree View --> Merge Credential List with Sessions"?
I understand the workaround, although it is very non-intuitive and as such is awkward. I can understand that if you want to show merged Credentials with the Sessions, the way you have things setup would make sense, but the default is NOT to merge the lists and as such they should be separate entities.
I think this is certainly an area you could improve upon in the future.
Many thanks
Chris
Hi,
I have few ideas to simplify that. Thank you for the comments.
David Hervieux