Community Tip - If community subscription notifications are filling up your inbox you can set up a daily digest and get all your notifications in a single email. X
<<<Applies to you if you are using Windchill publishing with SolidWorks data >>>
(I still shudder every day about going over to the "dark side" of SW, but it's interesting and mainly from acquisitions - similar for many companies and life goes on)
Learned recently that the Creo View adapter on the CAD Worker behaves as follows (different from Creo Parametric publishing): If the recipe file is set to "Fail Publish for Missing Dependents=yes" then it fails every SW assembly / drawing for which any component is suppressed - including intentional suppression of SW configurations (handled as Windchill family table instances).
Because of this, we have no choice but to leave "Fail Publish for Missing Dependents=no."
PTC just published this article based on our tech support case: CS257786 https://support.ptc.com/appserver/cs/view/solution.jsp?source=subscription&n=CS257786
So I'd like to create an Idea here suggesting that PTC change this to match Creo Parametric - allow Suppressed, but fail for actual missing dependents.
Just throwing this out for comment first.
thanks
I wonder if you could push back on this - maybe even escalate it up the food chain. A "Suppressed" component is not the same as "missing dependent". The second will cause failures. The first will not.
Definitely would like to have some feedback on this PTC product management responsible for publishing SolidWorks. Agree that it's a relatively serious thing to group "Missing" with "Suppressed."