Skip to main content
S
Sean-Trane1-Visitor
1-Visitor
June 19, 2014
Question

Need help removing some fields "Visible Fields".

  • June 19, 2014
  • 2 replies
  • 2283 views

Hi.

We've replaced the "Satisfies/Satisfied By" and "Verfies/Verified By" relationship fields with our versions of these relationships. With that done, we would like to remove them from the Specification item type because they are not used. When we remove these fields from the "Visible Fields" we get "Fields does not exist" errors when trying to create Specification Documents. I've searched the scripts and all the properties and couldn't find any references to these fields.

What do I need to do to be able to remove these fields from the "Visible Fields" of the Specification document.

Note: Please don't suggest simply "hiding" these fields. We are currently doing that and are trying to physically remove them from this item, and then the Solution.

-Sean

    2 replies

    L
    LLawton16-Pearl
    16-Pearl
    June 19, 2014

    If it were me, I would call PTC Support, get them on Webex and step through this with them to figure this out. You are making a big change to the solution. I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong, simply that this discussion forum isn't the best way for you to solve this problem.

    S
    Sean-Trane1-VisitorAuthor
    1-Visitor
    June 19, 2014

    Thank you for the reply. I'll enter a case number.

    -Sean

    M
    mrump16-Pearl
    16-Pearl
    June 23, 2014

    Hi Sean,

    the fields are referenced in several placed in you solution setup. (e.g. the "traces views" in you document UI).

    To really remove or rename an field from you setup you must check all occurrances in you setup.

    Furhtermore you might need to remove you local clients IntregriyClient.rc file, as it also might contain refernces (e.g. recent visible fields in a view) to that relationship.

    HTH Matthias

    K
    KaelLizak16-Pearl
    16-Pearl
    June 23, 2014

    Hi Sean,

    Matthias is correct. This is covered by Case Solution 160713, and there is a defect RFC against this, described in CS173692. It's possible the two case solutions will be merged.

    Regards,

    Kael

      S
      Sean-Trane1-VisitorAuthor
      1-Visitor
      June 23, 2014

      Thank you for the replies. I'll tackle this next time I'm doing some development work.

      -Sean

      Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement