risk of data loss in ILM 10.x and 11.x
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator
risk of data loss in ILM 10.x and 11.x
Hi all,
I would like to point out here in the community that under certain circumstances when working with ILM Workflow&Documents, set relationships can get lost if you remove a related item from a relationship field by drag and drop. In our case, every link in the backward relationship field is removed, not just those that you pull out with the mouse. This is all the worse because the user does not notice this because he does not see the backward relationship field at all.
We reported this case to PTC, it could be reproduced, but PTC is of the opinion that this is not an error but "works as designed". The following article is available: https://www.ptc.com/en/support/article?n=CS274468
In my opinion it is absurd to expect the customer to submit an idea and leave him (and other customers) alone with the risk of data loss in the meantime.
kind regards, Jens
- Labels:
-
Requirements & Validation
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator
Hello @JensN.,
We've initiated another review of this issue. Once it's gone through the review a response will be posted here.
Kind Regards,
Kael
Kind Regards,
Kael Lizak
Senior Technical Support Engineer
PTC Integrity Lifecycle Manager
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator
Hello @JensN.,
This issue has been reviewed and confirmed, and will be fixed in release Integrity Lifecycle Manager 12.1. This is will not be indicated in CS274468 until the actually released. Note that the article no longer indicates that this "behavior is as designed".
Kind Regards,
-Kael Lizak
Kind Regards,
Kael Lizak
Senior Technical Support Engineer
PTC Integrity Lifecycle Manager
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Notify Moderator
I am very pleased that the problem is going to be fixed now. Hopefully next time such a problem will not have to be discussed for a whole year again and then made public before PTC really starts working on it.
kind regards, Jens
