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

Hiding objects instead of deleting them

Hiding objects instead of deleting them

In my opinion it should be avoided that objects are really deleted in the Windchill database. Even if a part is not used anymore it shouldn't be deleted in the database. I would prefer a flag on each object that prevents it from being searched and attached to other objects anymore.

The main reason for this is deleting means that there is no further investigation possible -- a deleted object cant't be restored and you can't also find out what was delted and who deleted the object. If you think of an ERP System that would allow deleting objects this would be a desaster.

Feel free to discuss on this issue --- i'm sure ther are other opinions on this as well

Regards

Herbert

6 Comments
JeffBrodsky
Newbie

You definetely need to be able to delete objects - but under restricted conditions, such as only certain lifecyle states (in work), certain roles, and/or usage/linkage to other objects.

If an item is used by something else (i.e. in a bill of material, or called out on a change) deletion is bad.  If an item is not used, just created (i.e. by mistake), you should be able to clean up and delete.

hlinseisen
Newbie

I agree with you that deletion has to be possible and also changed the title of the idea-

But for example in one creates a change request it should be possible to hide it from the users without deleting it.

MatthewKnight
Participant

I"m not a DB person, but a quick search looks like you might be able to create trigger to fire before a delete statement?

LindaHeth
Newbie

Why can't you just "hide" the object by adjusting the access control on an "obsolete" "cancelled" or "hidden" lifecycle state.  Deny Read.

hlinseisen
Newbie

@Mathew -- we already have a trigger that logs deletion of objects

@Linda -- quite a good idea - thanks

PTCModerator
Emeritus
Status changed to: Archived