Repository navigation
Report page for exporting all activities in auditor-friendly format #494
Description
Currently, activity details are spread across multiple views, which makes it difficult to provide a consolidated overview for auditing purposes.
A dedicated Report page should be introduced that aggregates activities into a single view and allows configuration of what is included in the report.
The page should:
- Display all activities in one place.
- Allow users to configure which activities and attributes are included.
- Persist report configuration (e.g., in localStorage)
- Eventually support export/print functionality (preferably PDF) for auditor sharing.
Proposed Solution
- Create a new ReportComponent that renders activities using a modified ActivityDescriptionComponent.
- Add a configuration modal (ReportConfigModalComponent) that enables:
- Selection of levels
- Selection of dimensions and subdimensions
- Selection of activity attributes (description, risks, measures, etc.)
- Store configuration locally and re-render the report when updated.
- Implement export/print capability in a later iteration.
Additional Context
This feature aims to simplify audit workflows by providing a single consolidated view of activities with configurable scope and attributes.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels
Activity
wurstbrot commentedon Feb 21, 2026
The summary is correct. Most important is to filter by teams. So it will be easy to see which teams have implemented which activities
vbakke commentedon Feb 21, 2026
I like this @sawankshrma. My comments are not directly linked to the code, so I'll put them here, and not in the PR. Also I interpret your PR as a request for comments. So all my comments below are just meant for discussion points. To make the end result as good as possible 🙂
These comments are based on the PR as of 21 Feb.
Overview
If it's for auditors, we should probably start with an overview of sorts.
I'd prefer this to by presented Level, and not by Dimension. It is supposed to show the maturity and not
Teams
I agree with @wurstbrot, a way to select teams | groups is important.
Levels
Do we need to specify level individually? I cannot see anyone wanning level 1, 3 and 4, but not 2.
Isn't it better to link this to the Settings . MaxLevel ?
The layout feel very spaced out. Each activity takes a lot of room, and it's hard to get the full overview.
Would it be easier if we condensed the layout like this sample (Quickly put together in Word. Ignore hard table lines and the specific styling.)
I see two ways for the progress: Either group by Progress in each column, and list the teams in the cell.
Or group by team for each columns, display the progress in the cell.
Maybe we need both? (Configurable?)
Problem with this layout is that we loose the description. But that may be included somehow, I presume? :)
Descriptions
If we keep the layout in the PR, would it be a good idea to show some of the start of the description, when the field is collapsed?
It takes a lot of space, and provides little info unless the user expands the Description box.
By presenting the first wee snippet, the read would get the gist, and can expand if they are curious.
Tags
Not sure tags need this attention. It takes a lot of focus, and I'm not sure if it is appropriate in this context.
Menu position
I think we should move the Report menu-item up between Teams and Settings. It is part of the main app. (Anything below Settings, is more info / documentation.)
Sorting
@wurstbrot: What do think? Should the report be sorted by Level, then Dimension? Or Dimension, then Level?
sawankshrma commentedon Feb 21, 2026
Hi @vbakke thank you for this detailed review.
As mentioned in #495 (comment), the contents of the Report Page isn't fully finalized. Your detailed review will help ensure the implementation aligns well with both my vision and the maintainers’ expectations.
I’ll review the checklist comment item by item and address them one by one, either through follow-up commits or small incremental PRs—whichever you think works best.
wurstbrot commentedon Feb 21, 2026
I would sort it by dimension for an auditor to keep the context of implemented activities.
sawankshrma commentedon Feb 22, 2026
Hey @wurstbrot, Is this sorting looking good, or should I also first sort them by subdimensions?
vbakke commentedon Feb 22, 2026
I think you should split the table by sub-dimension, @sawankshrma.
E.g.
h1: Dimension
h2: Sub-dimension
table: activities, sorted by level
h2: Next Sub-dimension
etc...
Yes, I recognized the layout! :)
Doesn't really matter the state of completeness. It was a draft anyway. You made something concrete that we could discuss and bounce ideas off each other. It is so much easier being on the same page by having something "physical" that everyone sees :)
sawankshrma commentedon Feb 22, 2026
Got It! I’ll split the table by sub-dimension.
Thank You for saying that 😄.
Btw, I am almost done with the new layout with all the changes and layout designs proposed in this issue's comments and the PR. Will push the changes by EOD today.
vbakke commentedon Apr 1, 2026
Closing issue. Solve by PR #495