Community Tip - Did you get an answer that solved your problem? Please mark it as an Accepted Solution so others with the same problem can find the answer easily. X
Hi
I am using Creo 4 with windchill 12
I would like to show in the Model Tree the family table parameter 'Verification Status', is it possible?
Imagine that you have an instance not verified:
This instance is mounted inside an assembly. Could you see in the assembly model tree a column with "Verification Status"?
Thank you very much
Hello @Trebla
There is no way to configure this kind of information in Model Tree. Consider here that in your snapshot, the active object is the generic. and - still according to your snapshots- 2 instances are verified whereas one is not. This kind of information, if it was existing:
That said, my guess is that, in background, you would like to have this kind of information to prevent users (or at least to mitigate risks) to checkin Family Tables with Unverified instances. If my assumption is correct, related to that, upon checkin of a generic in a linked session, a conflict UI always opens informing users that instances are NOT verified. and this Conflict UI proposes Ignore this error by default. On this, consider following points:
Regards,
Serge
Thank you Serge for your full answer
We already have the option verify_on_save_by_default yes inside config.pro, but also we have some 'families' in windchill unverified like this:
I would like a column in the model tree for have the knowledge about 'Verification Status' at a glance with models that could by done by any user of the company...
If a column is not possible, I would like access to this parameter in some way, but I can not find it... is it possible?
Thank you again
Could this type of information be added to the notification center to warn the user of unverified instances? There is a warning upon save but not while working on the model.
Before prodciding generic answers, please allow me to share an important information on what I can see in last snapshot attached:
Switching now below to a more generic answer to this kind of questions:
Above guidance s far from being exhaustive, but I hope at least that this:
Regards,
Serge
I did a double take as well but on closer examination you can see they just blanked out the display of the names in the picture, probably for confidential reasons. I'm betting all of the names are actually unique.
The picture is from a standard, out-of-the-box table in Windchill. It shows the family table information for any instance or generic. For example:
Since Creo is passing this information to Windchill, it seems like there should be some way to easily expose it in Creo as well.
Hello @TomU
Yes, this information is passed from Creo Parametric to Windchill, and can be accessed if you customize a new tab with the table Family as you did in your snapshot.
However:
I nevertheless agree that it would be cool and helpful to "easily be able to expose presence of eventual unverified Instances in Creo" (differently than accessing first the Family Table UI), similarly maybe to what is shown in Windchill table, but this request needs to be reported as an enhancement request via a new Idea (not eligible to be reported as a SPR by PTC TS, because not part of current specifications)
Again anyway, I think it's important to consider that:
Considering above, as per my views (not official PTC position, just my views here), it would be much better to have a kind of config.pro option PREVENTING "Save" (preceeding Upload and Checkin) when being in a scope of a Family Table with Unverified instance. something like allow_save_unverified_instances with value yes (default, to keep legacy behavior unchanged) or no (to produce intentionnal unoverridable error upon "Save" attempt). This kind of "absolute prevention" is already possible in a scope of linked sessions, but requires usage of ModelCHECK as Gatekeeper, which is hard to configure without a background of knowledge and experience in the configuration process of this capability.
Regards,
Serge
Sorry for my delayed answer:
@TomU was right, there isn't a Names problem, I hid them for confidential reasons.
@kdirth I agree this 'Verification Status info' could be inside 'Notification Center' also
@sacquarone as you suggest, I opened a new Idea for this.
Thank you very much to all.