tarkka さんのグループアクティビティ

Ask A Question I

Wed, 12 Dec 2018 22:57:24 GMT

Ask a question in a forum.

Manufacturing Process Planning Error on action="get"

tarkka — Fri, 21 Sep 2018 15:41:20 GMT

Hello, I have discovered a small bug in the Manufacturing Process Planning module. I know this isn't a bug report form, but I wanted to see if other users or the developers had encountered this because I have isolated the culpable method and I suspect the fix is fairly simple. I am using MPP version 11.0R2 and Innovator 11.0 SP9 (Build 6549). I don't typically use substitutes or alternates so I didn't notice this issue for a while, but I recently added a substitute to a BOM. When you load or save the Process Plan that consumes that part, you get an error in the client: "Wrong internal structure of the 'this' item; e.g. item's "dom" is not set; or item's "node" doesn't belong to the item's "dom"; or both "node" and "nodeList" are null; etc." If you remove the part with a substitute from the process plan, the error goes away, so it's definitely related to substitutes/alternates. The problem appears to lie in the method "mpp_getPartAlterSubs". If I bypass the method by commenting it out and using "return this;" at the end, the error no longer appears. Of course, it doesn't display the substitute in the Process Plan either, so this isn't really a fix. Has anyone run into this issue before? I'm keen to hear from the Aras developers if this happens to have been addressed in a later release. Thanks, Mike

Sending notification from server events

Arthy — Thu, 20 Sep 2018 08:23:13 GMT

We need to send notification on modification of an item type. We wrote server side event to get the modification details but are in need of C# API to send notification. Thanks..

Part, Document and CAD Document Revisions

Former Member — Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:58:57 GMT

Hi All, This is in part a philosophical question and in part looking for advice from people who have implemented the Mechanical CAD Connectors with Innovator. Before anything else I will say that I appreciate the physical part should not, in ideal circumstances, have a part revision stamped or otherwise identified on it. That is not how certain parts of the organisation see things. As an organisation we have for many years directly linked our physical part revisions to the Mechanical CAD Model revisions. Physical parts will often have a revision identified on them and this revision directly relates to the CAD model data revision. Now we are live with Innovator and about to start implementing the CAD connectors. This brings to a head a change that the organisation did not really appreciate until very recently. The Innovator Part Data (which I will refer to as the Part Metadata), Document Data and CAD Document data are all independent entities that can change their revisions independently and in some cases dependently. This leads to the very real situation where, if you identify the part revision on a physical part, you have to ask which revision should be on the physical part. Should it be the CAD model revision which fundamentally is the primary data telling you how to build a "thing" and only changes when it has to or should it be the Part Metadata revision that changes when any related Document or CAD Document changes? I'm looking for input where possible from people who have encountered this themselves to find out how other organisations deal with this. Thanks, Brian.

tarkka さんの グループ アクティビティ

Ask A Question I

Manufacturing Process Planning Error on action="get"

Sending notification from server events

Part, Document and CAD Document Revisions

tarkka さんのグループアクティビティ