At the top of the Creo ModelCHECK Report window (attached screenshot), Error is indicated by a red symbol. Users are not allowed/not able to check-in the object. But further down, it says Parameter Error (for instance), with the warning symbol. Not so intuitive.
Not all Errors and Warnings are expanded in the ModelCHECK report window. In this example, the Errors aren’t that visible to the users as it should if the tab was expanded.
The parameter error is simply the name of the check. I agree that the name isn't the most clear, since you can configure the check to give a warning instead of an error. But that check is not what is causing the errors preventing check-in to Windchill.
As for expanding all errors/warnings by default, that is being considered for implementing in a future Creo release.
Currently, only the first category is expanded by default. In my view, this is not the appropriate behavior. It should either be all expanded or none expanded.
Your thoughts?
I assume you don't want all to be expanded by default because it would make the report too unwieldy? Even for the new report UI that came in Creo 5.0?
I have not played withy 5.0 enough to have seen the ModelCheck interface.
From my Wildfire 2 & 4 and Creo 2 experiences, you are right, I think the full display is too unwieldy. If this has improved to something more reasonable in sze, then I agree that it needs to be full expanded, or at least the header area that has an error/warning be expanded. If they don't see it, they don't fix it!
Off topic a little, but could there be an admin override to check in a part that fails ModelCheck? Maybe a check box at the bottom of the listing "Do you want your system administrator to force a check-in?" then prompt for the sys admin user credentials?
@BenLoosli Here is what the Creo 5.0 report looks like with all categories expanded by default. In Creo 4.0 and earlier, the categories were in tabs. I'm hopeful that the new UI is cleaner, but please let me know what you think:
As for the admin override, could you create a new product idea for that? It will help with prioritization efforts. Thank you!
The guy that set up our MC made a "loophole" so you put a user name in a file, special checks are triggered. These checks doesn't check anything. Our check files are loaded from a shared drive so if a user has a problem, admin can change this file and thus override normal checks.
In condition.mcc:
IF (GROUPNAME EQ loophole) config=(check/check_loophole.mch)(start/start_loophole.mcs)(constant/constant_axis.mcn)(status/status_concept.mcq).
One way to solve that issue?
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
