- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎12-21-2018 08:57 AM
I am trying to figure out how to make a couple fields not mandatory based on another question's answer. Using the Attestation Designer, I can make the fields visible or not. In our case, we want "Explain" and "Attach evidence" to be visible, but not required when "Is the control implemented" = No. If yes, the 2 fields can be mandatory. Usually I would do a UI policy, but cannot figure out how on an attestation form.
Solved! Go to Solution.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎12-23-2018 11:36 AM
I'm not aware of a way to set up UI Policies for attestations like this. But you can set up the desired record form using the following:
- In the Attestation Designer, create duplicates of the [Explain] and [Attach evidence] fields
- Have the Question text be the same for the duplicate fields, but have the names be unique for maintenance purposes (example-- Name: 'Explain (yes)', 'Explain (no)', 'Attach Evidence (yes)', 'Attach Evidence (no)').
- Make the 'Explain (yes)' and 'Attach evidence (yes)' fields dependent on : Is the control implemented? = Yes
- Make these two fields Mandatory
- Make the 'Explain (no)' and 'Attach evidence (no)' fields dependent on : Is the control implemented? = No
- Leave these two fields NOT Mandatory
Now when the user takes the attestation, they will see only one set of Explain and Attach evidence fields regardless of their response, but these two fields will only be mandatory if they respond "Yes" to the control being implemented.
Implemented = Yes:
Implemented = No:
Hope this helps!
Chris
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎09-30-2021 01:49 AM
Hi Chris,
I am Admin and also verified all the conditions and they were very well met.
Actually there was no issues as such when I updated the GRC : Policy & Compliance plugin in the instance it worked without any changes.
Thanks,
Uma