Incorrect Job Order Opened Instead of Requested One + Description Field Cleared

[CB_10149096]

Hello. We created a job order with ID 343 in the RTPPM System. However, when we tried to open this job order, the job order with ID E53435P001T001 was opened instead. Apart from containing the number 343 in it, there is no similarity between them. In fact, the job order with ID E53435P001T001 is not even assigned to the machine that was opened.

At first, we thought this was due to editing the job order creation mashup, but we realized that the same issue occurs even when we create the job order using the StartJobOrder_JOR service inside the machine’s thing.

Also, sometimes job orders that have no such similarity with each other are opened in place of one another.

Another issue is that the description field of the opened job order becomes empty. The synchronization on the machine’s thing is turned off.

[Rocko]

I don't see a request or question in this posting, not sure what it is aimed at.

Also this should be a ticket with PTC support, so they can look into the system with you and see if it is a product issue.

[mstarnaud]

Hi CB

A big suspect is the ID column versus the UID column. To be clear, the Id column in the Joborder table is its name, and the Uid is a number that is unique. Please make sure that when calling StartJobOrder_JOR, you use the names (or Id) for the name parameters, and the uids (numbers) for the uid parameters.

For the description being emptied, I want to validate : is it the Description column in the Joborder table? To my knowledge this is not used by RTPPM, instead it uses the following (and I'm not sure if all of them are required) : 

- Joborder.Id

- Joborder_ap.Name

- Joborder_ap.Displayname

In case we need to debug this further, I want to leave a note : the Description is a setting in the JobOrderModelPropertyBindings table in the Configuration tab in Composer. But I expect that it should only look at this at creation time.

[CB_10149096]

Hi  mstarnaud

We are aware of the difference between Id and UID and we are careful to use them correctly when starting. The reason we shared this here is that we feel a bit constrained with the situation.

Regarding JobOrderModelPropertyBindings, it is not only used at the time of job order creation, but also when updating existing job orders. We even experienced the same issue when the Sync Job Order box was unchecked. Previously, we had bound a property to the JobOrderModelPropertyBindings section, thinking that it would take the existing value, rewrite it, and allow us to bypass this situation. Later on, we removed the property. Still, even with sync unchecked and the property field empty, we can confirm that the description in an existing job order is being cleared.

So, perhaps Rokko is right — opening a ticket might be the most appropriate way forward.

Best regards,