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

Community Tip - Did you get called away in the middle of writing a post? Don't worry you can find your unfinished post later in the Drafts section of your profile page. X

[IM] "creating related item" is copying fields, but shouldn't...

JensN.
13-Aquamarine

[IM] "creating related item" is copying fields, but shouldn't...

Hi @all,

we have an item-type CR (Changerequest). This CR can have a child-item MR (Module-Request). The user should create this MR via click at the little button with the chain-symbol in the relationship-field ("create a related item and add it to the field"). CR and MR are different item-types, but they are using some fields together.

So if the user do the above described action, the MR will be created and added to this relationship-field. So far so good. While integrity creates this new item, it copies all field-values from the fields which are the same in both items. But we dont want this. And we didnt find a way to prevent this. It seems that the settings in "copy fields" for this item will be ignored by Integrity for this usecase. Did i miss something?

kind regards, Jens

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
mrump
14-Alexandrite
(To:JensN.)

Hi Jens,

there seems to be a difference between the "copy item" and "create related item" function.

When using "copy item", the "copy fields" (that can be defined per Type) are used to limit the amount of copied field values.

When using "create related item" (at least in your setup) there is always the checkbox to "copy common fields" in the upcoming dialog.

This seems to do exactly what it says: It's an all or nothing option to either copy nothing at all (unchecked) or to copy all common fields, independent of the type setup (checked).

To some extend this behavior makes sense, but I understand you problem

We have a comparable usecase and solved it using a pre-trigger that simple removes all field values on the newly created item we do not want to be copied (e.g. a comment field).

Unfortunately this does only work after the user "reviewed "the new item and clicked apply (which fires the trigger event).

The users may be confused to see some fields value that are not actually stored afterwards.

Thinking of it, there might be a solution to this using constraints based on the "unspecified" state....

HTH Matthias

View solution in original post

6 REPLIES 6
mrump
14-Alexandrite
(To:JensN.)

Hi Jens,

there seems to be a difference between the "copy item" and "create related item" function.

When using "copy item", the "copy fields" (that can be defined per Type) are used to limit the amount of copied field values.

When using "create related item" (at least in your setup) there is always the checkbox to "copy common fields" in the upcoming dialog.

This seems to do exactly what it says: It's an all or nothing option to either copy nothing at all (unchecked) or to copy all common fields, independent of the type setup (checked).

To some extend this behavior makes sense, but I understand you problem

We have a comparable usecase and solved it using a pre-trigger that simple removes all field values on the newly created item we do not want to be copied (e.g. a comment field).

Unfortunately this does only work after the user "reviewed "the new item and clicked apply (which fires the trigger event).

The users may be confused to see some fields value that are not actually stored afterwards.

Thinking of it, there might be a solution to this using constraints based on the "unspecified" state....

HTH Matthias

JensN.
13-Aquamarine
(To:mrump)

Hi Matthias,

again you saved my day, and this time the solution is that simple: i really missed the option "copy common fields". I really didnt recognize it

That any trigger just can work after the apply-button is clicked, is a problem to us too. We spoke to our PTC-consultants (and opened a RfC for this) that we want to have some more direct reactions by the system (i.e when a field is changed that another field gets a new value or such things), but there is not much hope that such a RfC will ever be fulfilled...

Thanks, Jens

mrump
14-Alexandrite
(To:JensN.)

Hi Jens,

actually what you discribe is possible with contraints.

What version of Integrity are you using?

KaelLizak
14-Alexandrite
(To:mrump)

Jens,

Matthias is correct that in more recent versions of Integrity, constraints can offer some direct actions and restrictions to some field values based on the values of other fields.

I, too, would like to know which version of Integrity are you using?

Regards,

Kael


Kind Regards,
Kael Lizak

Senior Technical Support Engineer
PTC Integrity Lifecycle Manager
JensN.
13-Aquamarine
(To:KaelLizak)

Hi Michael, Hi Matthias,

we're using 10.4 at the moment and will switch to 10.5 in the next weeks.

Our wishes for more direct reactions are not just field values depending on values of other fields (this example was too simple ). Some other things we want to have are:

  • running computations without "apply": we have a date-field, and a field which shows the weeknumber of the date. This works with a computation, but you have to click at "apply" first.
  • dynamic change of field-size: we want to have the possibility to change dynamically the size of a long text field from 5 to 25 lines for editing.
  • we want to have action buttons inside the form, and a click at these action button should start an action (just like a custom action), but with a dependency to the values which are in the form, but not yet in the database.
  • ...

But i think, this is subject of another discussion, and some of these points are listed as RfC already.

kind regards, Jens

KaelLizak
14-Alexandrite
(To:JensN.)

Thanks for the update, Jens!

For those who are curious, the following RFCs cover or relate to some Jens' wishlist above:

  • RFC 444986/CS92283: Ability to resize long text-field windows in the Integrity web interface while user is in edit mode
  • RFC 444981/CS92282: Ability to resize long text-field windows in the Integrity client while user is in edit mode
  • RFC145373 seems close to custom actions inside of a view/edit form: Allow Custom Actions in Item Edit View

I was unable to find a feature request covering running computations without apply, although I suspect there is unexpressed interest from customers.

Regards,

Kael


Kind Regards,
Kael Lizak

Senior Technical Support Engineer
PTC Integrity Lifecycle Manager
Top Tags