Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 117 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: Project Team tab in Project ItemType. #13096


    You can add own team roles this way:

    Creating Custom Team Roles in Aras PLM

    Team roles are just Identities with a Team classification.

    in reply to: How to pass items in applyMethod? #13093


    Hi Andreas,

    no, of course I didn´t try that…
    Many thanks for this one, this version now does the job pretty well:

    Innovator inn = this.getInnovator();
    Item res = this.apply("MyMainMethod");
    if (res.isError())
        XmlDocument xDoc = new XmlDocument();
        string faultstring = xDoc.SelectSingleNode("//faultstring").InnerText;
        return inn.newError("Error: " + faultstring);
    return res;
    in reply to: How to pass items in applyMethod? #13077


    Hi Andreas,

    thanks for your help! Your code basically works, but I still have some trouble to hand over the complete Item that calls the Method:

    // Calling Method
    Innovator inn = this.getInnovator();
    Item myItem = this.newItem(this.getAttribute("type"), "MyMainMethod");
    Item results = myItem.apply();
    if (results.isError())
        return inn.newError("Error while Insert Data. " + results);
    return results;
    // Main Method
    Innovator inn = this.getInnovator();
    string thisItemTypeName = this.getItemByIndex(0).getAttribute("type",""); // work! will return type of calling Item instead of Method
    // Parameters passed with Method call
    string keyword = this.getProperty("keyword_","invalid"); // works
    if (keyword == "..."){}
    // Get properties from calling Item
    int count = this.getItemCount(); // don´t work
    string pn = this.getItemByIndex(0).getProperty("item_number", "empty"); // don´t work, will always be empty, as "this" doesn´t contain the complete original Item.

    It would be possible to extend the calling Method to handover more properties. But this would make the calling Method more complex. One alternative is to extend the Method call so it contains the original Item:
    myItem.setProperty("myitem_", this);

    But I am not sure if passing “this” is really the best solution. This will move around a lot of data, as the Method shall apply to multiple items.

    in reply to: Messed up with the Default revisions #13070


    Yeah, I also did this once. I changed the Default Revision Schema from “A B C” to “V B C” just to see what happens. This was the official solution from support:

    A quick solution is to edit the database:
    – Start SQL Server Management.
    – Expand the database InnovatorSolution and expand Tables, locate the table innovator.REVISION.
    – Right click and select Edit Top 200 Rows.
    – Change the value in the Revision-column to “A B C D”

    in reply to: Changes Pending in Part #12870



    the Changes Pending checkbox cannot be set by the user. The checkbox is set when the corresponding Item is used in a Change Process.

    These two Methods do the job:

    With “Where Used” you can see, that these Methods are used in ItemType Server Events. But beware – that´s only half the truth. Most of the time, these Methods are triggered by LifeCycle transistions.

    These two Methdos trigger the checkbox update quite often:

    When you create a custom change process, you must extend these two with your own functions.


    Some update:

    One additonal problem occures when versioning the Item. Here Component Engineering also needs the add access to add the new relationship.
    Lock and Unlock also needs special handling, as in my example the costs shall be completly separated from the Part. Null-relationships are not intended to support this behaviour.

    It really requires a lot of Methods to handle all possibly situations than can occur.

    But maybe I found the ultimate best solution: Federated relationship inside the Aras db.

    1. Create a new Itemtype (e.g. MyGoals) for storing the costs.
    2. This new ItemType must contain the same properties like Part Goal. So we have to add properties for “source_id”, “actual_value”, …
    3. Add an onGet Method in Part Goal that takes the values from MyGoals

    This way we can achieve a hard separation of Parts and Costs. Both can be added and edited separately. We can use complete different permissions models, without getting into trouble when version or copy an Item.

    I really like this soluton! But I would be happy to hear any second opinion when it comes to this use case.

    in reply to: Call dijit.Dialog from method? #12840



    I currently work on a similar use case. I want to open a tooltip dialog from the grid.

    For a regular dialog, something like this basically works from a Javascript Method:

    ], function(Dialog, Form, TextBox, Button) 
        var form = new Form();
        new TextBox({
            placeHolder: "Name"
        new Button({
          label: "OK"
        var dialog = new Dialog({
            content: form,
            title: "Dialog with form content",
            style: "width: 300px; height: 300px;"
    in reply to: Export and Import Item Type #12825


    I am not 100% sure, but I do not think xProperties are already supported by SP9. I remember that I ran into a similar situation while testing the Federation sample in SP9. In my case, I just deleted the xProperty related Import Files from the Import Package and worked with the remaining rest (of course I used a test environment).

    in reply to: Reverse Relationship for Affected Items #12812


    I think you could add one additional level under your “Affected Item” query. Both “new_item_id” and “affected_id” use the PolyItem “ChangeControlledItem”. This PolyItems combines the ItemType “Part”, “Document” and “CAD”.
    In “ChangeControlItem” you can search for distinct ItemTypes, like “Document” by setting a filter on the property “itemtype”.

    Different nomenclature, but something like this:

    Item ChCtrI = inn.newItem("Change Controlled Item","get");
    ChCtrI.setProperty("itemtype", "Document");
    in reply to: Manufacturing Process Planning Error on action="get" #12810



    I used both 11SP9 with MPP 11.0R2 and 11SP11 and MPP 11.0R3. I haven´t seen this error message yet.
    But I have to admit we didn´t use Alternates and Substitutes very often.
    In 11SP11 and MPP 11.0R3 I can confirm that Alts and subs are displayed but sometimes the table rendering of the ProcessPlan makes some trouble when using more than one Alternate Part. But I think this is more related to my customized renderings and stylesheet.

    The Method mpp_getPartAlterSubs defenitely changed from R2 to R3. The R2 version has 54 lines of code, the R3 version only 21.

    Best regards

    in reply to: ISO26262 #12794


    Hi David,

    thanks for your input! It´s not about having Aras providing a distinct solutions for every use case. It´s more about making transparent what´s possible and getting the right people together.

    To explain it in the international language of interlocking plastic bricks of this Danish toy company. What do we need for building a pirate ship?
    – Bricks
    – Work instruction
    – Cardboard box that give you an intention of one possible result (+ alternative ideas) of what you can build
    – Safety instructions, that take care you didn´t make an epic fail while building the model
    – Somebody who builds it

    I am never afraid of customizations and already submitted own projects. But for providing a basic project for complex topics like ISO26262 (or similar) you need people with different background to find a solution.
    The forum is a good start to share ideas, but often interesting topics are like hidden treasures – you have to search for them. There is a high risk, that peoples interested in the same topics will never find them.
    I often miss a link between the forum (first discussions of ideas) and the project area (already working projects).

    The current forum areas most of the time contain a lot of general question. You cannot see, which community project are currently “in work”. Maybe an extra area for “community driven projects” would be helpful.
    This way it would be easier to see, which topics are more popular than others and bring the right people together to work on a project.

    Just some thoughts of mine.

    in reply to: Extended Classification #12663


    I feel I will run into the same situation. Is there a difference if I use one big tree or several separate trees for the same ItemType?

    For ItemType Part I do not use one big tree right now. I have created a few Mastertrees (Electrical, Mechanical) that will then contain the Subclasses. They all link to ItemType Part so in the end I will again get the complete tree.

    in reply to: select class on Extended Classification #12662


    Hi fdxu168,

    I came accross your post as I currently also work with extended classification. I think your use case can be solved with a Method.

    xClasses are linked to Parts like this:

    -> Relationship PART_XCLASS
    –> Related Item XCLASS (e.g. class ‘Resistor’)

    I think it´s possible to add the PART_XCLASS relationship with an onBeforeAdd/onAfterAdd Method.

    in reply to: ISO26262 #12661



    yes I know, this thread is one year old. But it´s a good topic I want to keep this one alive. Maybe there are more users interested in this topic.

    ISO 26262 is about functional safety in vehicles. It defines the way a company shall work when they develop safety relevant parts of vehicles.
    You can image that this is a growing task, espcially when considering all the hard- and software you need for autonomous vehicles.

    To fulfill the requirements you have to do a lot of analysis and documentation work.
    With Aras, many of the requirements can be covered. E.g. Quality Managment, FMEAs and overall product and compliance documentation. Some other things are not part of the standard Aras feature set, but can be added as custom solution (e.g. MTBF calculation. It would be perfect in combination with Aras CE.). More complex is probably how to handle software.

    @ Aras: Don´t you have an Automotive Solutions division in your company? Would be an interesting topic!

    Best regards!

    in reply to: Sharepoint Library not in TOC #12617



    I think the corresponding ItemType is “SPDocumentLibraryDefinition”. It´s normally just visible for the Super User in the Configuration section.
    You can change the TOC Access so you can also access it as regular admin.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 117 total)