cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - You can change your system assigned username to something more personal in your community settings. X

MS Project integration - Resource Names not working

sdettmer
1-Visitor

MS Project integration - Resource Names not working

Hello,

I'm trying to synchronize some content between PTC-Integrity and MS Project.

Everytime I try to synchronize the "Assigned User" of an Integrity-Taks with the the "Resource Names" field of a MS Project-Task the resource is added to the project but NOT assigned to the Task. How can this happen?

I feel like it was working when I started to work on the mapping but I'm not sure and going back to the starting point with the mapping does not make any difference...

My log:

Command: dm mapitem --map=AAAAAAAAAA MS Project Mapping --action=put --integration=MKSProjectTemplate-1:635254522220646454 ISSUE:3 Task.MKS Issue:2092215

Entering IssueHelper.synchronizeItems()

Retrieving updates for task linked to 2092215

Leaving IssueHelper.synchronizeItems()

Creating 0 new tasks ...

Updating Task 2 with field Task.Resource Names, value <mksUserName>

Assigning resource name: <mksUserName>

Resource <mksUserName> already exists. Re-assigning user <Lastname, Firstname>

Appending resourceUnits to resource: 100

Updating resource: <Lastname, Firstname>[100%,R]

Updating Task 2 with field Task.Work, value 54

Updating Task 2 with field Task.Finish, value

Updating Task 2 with field Task.Name, value My Test Task IM 2 MPP

Updating Task 2 with field Task.Notes, value my desc

Updating Task 2 with field Task.MKS Issue Type, value Task

Updating Task 2 with field Task.MKS Issue, value 2092215

Leaving resyncSelected_Click...

Coresponding mapping part:

<field external="Task.Resource Names"

internal="Assigned User"


direction="out"


value-translation-type="string-string"/>

I'm using Integrity 10.1 Server with 10.3 Client and MS Project Standard 2003.

Is somebody doing the same and it is working fine?

Has somebody an idea why this is not working for me?

best regards

4 REPLIES 4
mrump
16-Pearl
(To:sdettmer)

Hi,

we had the same problem about a year ago (unfortunately I don't have the detailed conversation anymore)

The main problem is that the resource that is exported into the project file, cannot be used for import due to formating problems.

@PTC : this is still a really annoying problem.

PTC Support came up with this:

Workaround: map fullname and name (LoginID) into separate Resource fields to be able to run a successful roundtrip.

So you need to have the LoginID in a separate field to use it for re-import.

PS:

There also is still a (years old) problem with date synchronization, where you get a gap of one day during synchronization ( ask PTC support about C11008460).

sdettmer
1-Visitor
(To:mrump)

Hi,

if I got you the problem does come up during the "re-import" of a user?

But I don't want to import any user from MSP into PTC...

So may be I can solve this by telling the Mapping to not Import?

As far as I see every field has the direction "out" so how can I do this?

Can you give a mapping example?

At least part of your problem is that the field direction is set to "out". That direction is a one way trip from the Integrity product to whatever it is mapping to, with no round trips.

From the Integrity 10.4 Gateway User's Guide (link opens in new window):

The direction attribute specifies the direction of the relationship between the external data and internal data fields.

directionDescription
inThe internal data field is updated from the external data field.
outThe external data field is updated from the internal data field
bothThe external and internal data field can be updated from the other, depending on the context
noneignores all previously defined mappings

If the direction attribute is unspecified, direction=both the default behavior.

Regards,

Kael


Kind Regards,
Kael Lizak

Senior Technical Support Engineer
PTC Integrity Lifecycle Manager

Hello Matthias,

It's probably more useful to point to the case solution: CS 92654 (it's not currently visible, but should be made sothe next time a case is opened against it).

I'm not sure what the other part of this issue is for you, but I suspect it's possible it's CS 87676.



Kind Regards,
Kael Lizak

Senior Technical Support Engineer
PTC Integrity Lifecycle Manager
Announcements


Top Tags