It would be nice if we could maintain in the Architecture configuration a "whitelist" of self-explanatory names  that don't need a description.This list could have default already have the most common names like:*IdNameLabelDescriptionCreatedByUpdatedByCreatedOnUpdatedOnThe code analysis pattern Missing description on public element",  should then use this list and exclude reporting elements with names that are on this list.

Hi!The idea is:Set a module as Internal/Private relative to its application so that its public elements can only be consumed by other modules in the same application.When an element is set to public in a module it becomes available to be consumed by all other modules (with the exception of some rules that relate to the type of modules).But sometimes the public elements of a module should only be consumed by other modules in the same application because that module is just a supporting/internal module; its public elements should not be consumed by other modules external to its application.Being able to set a module as "Internal" or "Private" to its application to achieve the goal above would allow better control on the dependencies, improve on the architecture, and prevent incorrect consumption of public elements. I give two examples to support this idea:1) Integration Builder produces per integration two modules: An "IS" module and a "DRV".To use the integration you should only consume actions from the "IS" module and not from the "DRV" module, even though the "DRV" exposes public actions.This is even explicitly documented in Integration Builder.2) The Forge component "Human Readable Change History" contains two modules: an extension AutoEntityDiff and a module DiffEntityDataToText.Although of the extension AutoEntityDiff  exposes public actions they are only meant to be consumed by the module DiffEntityDataToText which in fact implements the intended functionality, but by mistake any developer can consume directly from the extension.For the possibility of modules being moved from one application to another application, consumer modules would become with outdated dependencies and when republished they would be broken if they consumed public elements from an Internal/Private module that did not belong to its application.--Tiago Bernardo

In the version Version 11.54.82 / Build 63748 there is a new warning, Unused Resource, Resource 'Resource' is never used. Consider deleting it. and the warning points to Resources->MyResources.zip. This resource is part of a mobile application, and the zip file contains all the icons (logos) used by the app. I recommend removing this warning, as an inexperienced developer might mistakenly delete it, causing future compilations to generate the application without its logos.

When developing mobile app, you can use static entitities.However they are not available if your application is running offline.Most mobile apps we develop are based on offline first principal, making usage of static entitities useless.

With the quiz being added to the Web Develop Web Application course, I would love to see one for the Mobile course as well. It really helps validate your understanding of what you just learned. And of course this is a really nice way of getting a glimpse of the questions you can expect when going for the certification.

Since a while now, it's possible to convert an Aggregate to an SQL query. This is a great feature, but it has a number of limitations. For one, discoverability is low. Why not add it to the context menu when clicking an Aggregate?Secondly, the limitations listed are annoying, if Service Studio can run the query on the database, it should be able to convert it to SQL. The limitations listed: The option to convert an Aggregate to a SQL element will only be available if your Aggregate doesn't include: Structures in Sources Calculated Attributes Group By attributes Dynamic SortsIt would be nice if this feature would be improved, so that all (or most) of these limitations are gone.

There should be a method where I can read html template with the data. So I can show it to the user before sending a email and user can edit if he wants. GetEmailHtml(templateScreenId, data) it will return rendered html so we can use it to edit and then pass it to sendemail method

I would love for us to be able to put comments in the un-utilised areas around the canvas in mobile apps and reactive apps. Similar to the way the comments in Action screens work, these could be used for comments on why something has been put in, or reminders for development work yet to complete on this screen, or bugs to fix. The comment widget would need to be added to the widget tray on the left, and then it could be dragged to the grey background.

It would be nice to add the possibility of dragging and dropping a structure to a screen to create a form. Not having to go by the entity. The goal is to store the object generated in the form in a local variable. For instance to be sent out to API. When we need Outsystems only for the front end of an application (in case of legacy for instance), it could be handy to work with structure instead of entities that will be empty shell creating useless call the a db. Thanks

We could have the option of, within the context of espace in Service Studio, perhaps in the Module menu, "Move Espace to ...", the same action that occurs from within the context of the Application, where you choose which application to use for the space be moved.This is useful, for example, when cloning a space, either to test some functionality separately or even to definitely split the architecture (This would avoid, for example, having to go to Independent Modules and then move again).