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

undo Revise action OR enable roll-back of Revise

undo Revise action OR enable roll-back of Revise

Normally, in a Windchill environment you 'release' data using Promote, which will increase the state for example from InWork to Released.

In case of a change, a Revise is required as to increase the revision, set iteration back to 1 and set state back to InWork;  which in all enables engineers to start modifying the object.

In rare situations, a change is canceled/aborted. to 'clean up the Windchill archive' you have to clean up the 'newest revision as this data has never been released.

in order to do so, it would be very helpful to have a functionality that rolls back the current revision. it basically removes all iteration in that particular revision.

Now this can only be done with a actual delete command; but you have to be very sure that you do not delete the complete object  (all iterations).

'Undo Revise' would be a proper command name and thus less risky as it is different then 'Delete'.

22-Sapphire I

Agree that the actual words used for actions are critical to understanding and avoiding mistakes.  I don't agree at all with "roll-back" or any variation of it in this case.  It is truly a matter of deleting.  Possibly there could be something done to ensure more easily that you are deleting only iterations of the current Revision.


I agree with Mike.  Maybe something needs to be done with the wording but having fixed cancelled CNs for 4 years now, there are times that "roll-back" will not work.  For instance, if you revise an object and add a new instance, then use the instance in an assembly is a case.  It won't even let you delete it without some work.

Here is an idea on the wording for delete, but I think that "all iterations of each object included in the table" and "all revisions of each object included in the table" are self explanatory.  It does put the revision of the object that you are dealing with in the table.  Maybe there needs to be a box to check to show everything that will be deleted and then have a box pop up that shows every item that needs to be deleted.  I would want this as an option because it would be an unnecessary step for some people.

1-22-2016 8-41-52 AM.png


This case is actually really common but not yet solved. One possibility would be to add the Change Task to Project Link. But there the problem exists also since no revise is allowed. To do some changes the object in PJL needs already be revised.

I voted for the idea to have it somehow solved. Delete is for sure not the right way! But to have the possibility to restore the latest released state again would be really helpfully.

Sander de Geus‌ Perhaps you can formulate the idea more general.


What then to do about referential integrity? The issue I am
most confronted with when removing the errant revision. I will attempt to
delete the current iteration/version; only to be stopped by referential
integrity violations. Every fix I have read, involves deleting older versions
of parts or assemblies that the errant part was used in. it quickly becomes a
very long process, and in some cases is simply not possible. I end up setting
the state of the errant revision to obsolete, then moving the object to private
product to prevent others from accidentally using it. There should be a better
way. If anyone has a solution; I would appreciate your sharing it..


Mike and Brian have it right. The functionality already exists but could perhaps use a little clarification.


The case we run into is there is a proposed design change for one reason or another it is decided to be terminated. Funding could get cut. The problem could end up changing different objects. We try to have a strict "no deleting" policy, but we all know there are exceptions to every rule. Everytime we manually have to "roll back" and delete the version you take about 5 minutes looking at the delete dialog making sure the right radio button is selected followed by a hesitant button click.


We considered trying to creating some workflow code to do the deletes for us. I'm sure it can be done, but will take a lot of testing to make sure it works as intended, and then we'd have to make sure the right items are selected in the CR/CN/CT for deletion. Would just be nice if the system took care of it for us, especially when items are revised but not edited yet.

Community Manager
Status changed to: Archived


We are archiving your idea as part of a general review. This action is based on the age of your idea and the total number of votes received, as per this announcement.

You can always post a new idea with all the details required in the form.

Thank you for your participation.