Skip to main content
D
dgraham-41-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 19, 2013
Question

Primary Content filename does NOT match uploaded filename

  • February 19, 2013
  • 5 replies
  • 1515 views
Another strange one. Anyone seen this before.

We have quite a few Primary Contents where the filename does NOT match the
name of the file that was uploaded. It seems Windchill appended a "-1" in
front of the files extension. This can be fixed but has anyone else seen
this before.

Windchill 6.2.6 --> 8.0 --> 10.1

David Graham
Windchill Administrator
Pro|ENGINEER Administrator
CAx Administrator


Emhart Glass Manufacturing Inc.
Emhart Glass Research Center
123 Great Pond Drive | Windsor, CT 06095 | USA
Telephone +1 (203) 376-3144 | Telefax +1 (860) 298 7397
Mobile +1 (203) 376-3144 |

5 replies

S
Sudeep_Bhattara1-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 19, 2013
Hi Dale,

It seems like those objects have multiple primary contents. This happens
when multiple ApplicationData are created for the same object.

You will have to delete old primary contents by writing a tool. PTC tech
support might be able to help you on this as there are many clients who
have reported and fixed this issue before.


*Sudeep Bhattarai*
NajaNaja Ltd
Phone: (847) 220-7008
<">http://portal.ptcuser.org/p/cm/ld/fid=203>
<sudeep.bhattarai@najanaja.com">http://portal.ptcuser.org/p/cm/ld/fid=203>sudeep.bhattarai@najanaja.com

> front of the files extension. This can be fixed but has anyone else seen
> this before.
>
> Windchill 6.2.6 --> 8.0 --> 10.1
>
> David Graham *Windchill Administrator*
> *Pro|ENGINEER Administrator*
> *CAx Administrator*
D
dgraham-41-VisitorAuthor
1-Visitor
February 19, 2013

Sudeep,


It's David not Dale.


Anyway. You are correct. I did a post a while back about muli-primary contents.


PTC was of no help in resolving this. I wrote my own code to find ContentHolders of class wt.doc.WTDocument where there were more than one primary and then delete all primaries except the latest one. If latest could not be determined by Timestamp, there were close to 2000 with identical Timestamps (both create and modify), I then used the primative long id number. The larger id number is the latest.


We had ~93,000 of these. Now we have none.


As for the Filename not being right I wrote code to find objects where the UPLOADEDFROMPATH filename does not match the FILENAME. If it does not match then reset the FILENAME to match the UPLOADEDFROMPATH filename. Seems to work well. I did not bother with PTC as it is easier to simply fix it myself.


This particular dB is somewhat unique as it originated from 6.2.6 and therefore was created when Windchill*PDMLink was still quite immature.This dB's upgrade path is 6.2.6 --> 8.0(M020) --> 10.1(M010).


David Graham


Windchill Administrator
Pro|ENGINEER Administrator
CAx Administrator




In Reply to Sudeep Bhattarai:


Hi Dale,

It seems like those objects have multiple primary contents. This happens
when multiple ApplicationData are created for the same object.

You will have to delete old primary contents by writing a tool. PTC tech
support might be able to help you on this as there are many clients who
have reported and fixed this issue before.


*Sudeep Bhattarai*
NajaNaja Ltd
Phone: (847) 220-7008
<
<
http://najanaja.com

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:29 AM, David Graham
@<david.graham@emhartglass.com>wrote:

> Another strange one. Anyone seen this before.
>
> We have quite a few Primary Contents where the filename does NOT match the
> name of the file that was uploaded. It seems Windchill appended a "-1" in
> front of the files extension. This can be fixed but has anyone else seen
> this before.
>
> Windchill 6.2.6 --> 8.0 --> 10.1
>
> David Graham *Windchill Administrator*
> *Pro|ENGINEER Administrator*
> *CAx Administrator*
S
Sudeep_Bhattara1-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 19, 2013
Hi David -
The process you came up with looks complete..

This issue has been seen before under similar circumstances as yours. I
remember almost 4+ years (maybe the time of Windchill 6 or 7) back a
customer running into this issue and it was because of something PTC had
done and we had to run a tool that PTC had supplied to fix this. The
customer has had Windchill since 4.0 or 5.0

Thank you

*Sudeep Bhattarai*
NajaNaja Ltd
Phone: (847) 220-7008
sudeep.bhattarai@najanaja.com

> <sudeep.bhattarai@najanaja.com">http://portal.ptcuser.org/p/cm/ld/fid=203>sudeep.bhattarai@najanaja.com
>
>
> > front of the files extension. This can be fixed but has anyone else seen
> > this before.
> >
> > Windchill 6.2.6 --> 8.0 --> 10.1
> >
> > David Graham *Windchill Administrator*
> > *Pro|ENGINEER Administrator*
> > *CAx Administrator*
M
mkraegeloh1-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 20, 2013
just as a side note - "The larger id number is the latest" is not necessarily true 😉

imagine a setup with multiple MS and a cached sequence ... though I have seen this only once, when I found that sorting
by ida2a2 desc did not yield the desired results.

martin

S
Sudeep_Bhattara1-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 20, 2013
For this case probably sorting by timestamp should suffice.

However now your comment about largest number not being the latest is going
to impact me on something I am working..

I am merging CAD data residing in Windchill 8 with Windchill data in 10. I
was going to walk through the history by using ida2a2 as sequence (cannot
use created date because it is not unique) and load the data. Wanted easy
out. I guess I will have to find another way to sequence them.

Thank you for your comment.


*Sudeep Bhattarai*
*NajaNaja Ltd*
*Phone: (847) 220-7008*
*sudeep.bhattarai@najanaja.com
*
*
Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement