Skip to main content
Solved

Service COntract - PM Actions - Object unselectable

  • January 17, 2025
  • 8 replies
  • 110 views
Timmermans Roel
Hero (Partner)
Forum|alt.badge.img+12

Hi All,

 

i’m not sure what is exactly going on here so I thought to see if anyone has a suggestion on what is happening.

 

Situation:

  • We have Service Contract ‘8’
  • I added a couple of Service Lines
  • Each service lines is associated with some Objects through the Scope tab
  • Service Line ‘3’ has 1 object using the ‘Use Line on Structure’ option enabled (see printscreen - I also added a shot of the Eq Obj Navigator so you can see what objects are included in the structure of Object RTI250115-001)

 

NBow I go to my PM Actions. I already created 3 PM actions for 3 objects belonging to that tree structure (Object Id’s ending in -003 / -004 /-006).

 

Now I also want to create a PM action for Object -006 connected to Service Line 2 but this seems impossible. IFS will not allow me to select that combination.

When I select Service Line 2, the drop down is limited to Objects ending in -001 / -002 / -005 = the objects that were not previously used.

 

Why is that? Why would that limit my selection?

 

P.S. I did already put the contract in ‘Active’ and now in ‘Negotiated’. Maybe that makes a difference allthough I still think it shouldn’t… A contract under negotiation should also be changeable in this manner, correct?

 

 

 

And while investigating this issue I stumbled on some other strange behaviour:

When I want to add a PM action and click on ‘Find’ in the drop down menu of the object, we get a table of possible Object/Line No combinations. The table shows 9 options (despite the limit being 24 lines and using table view). Unfortunately, the table does not seem to be limited to those 9 because when you sort on different columns, you still get different line combinations that were not previously visible.

Does that seem like a bug? Shouldn’t we be able to scroll down the entire list and not be limited to a set of 9 lines when there are clearly more to choose from?

 

Looking forward to your feedback and suggestions!

 

Best Regards

Roel

Best answer by Thilini Kumarasinghe

Hi ​@Timmermans Roel 

Yes, I did the same test flow in 24R2 environment and observed same behaviour. i.e. 005 object got removed from the list and also ‘Use Line on Structure’ is disabled as well.

However, I re-enabled it using the “Edit” option in the scope line and then it works fine.

 

Steps:

Click on edit option.

Enable  ‘Use Line on Structure’ and save.

 

Now, Object 005 is again visible.

 

Therefore, if an object move has been done, as per the current system, we need to re-enable the option.

 

Best Regards,

Thilini

View original
Did this topic help you find an answer to your question?

8 replies

Timmermans Roel
Hero (Partner)
Forum|alt.badge.img+12
  • Timmermans Roel
  • Author
  • Hero (Partner)
  • 180 replies
  • January 21, 2025

Dear,

 

Trying to get some more exposure on this topic. ​@Thilini Kumarasinghe , since you were aware of the bug on the ‘Service Contract Scope’, do you might have more information on this strange behaviour? is it also a known issue?

 

Best Regards

Roel

Thilini Kumarasinghe
Ultimate Hero (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+21

Hi ​@Timmermans Roel 

Let me separate the 2 issues,

  1. Previously used Object IDs are not available in the list
  2. Find option of Object ID LOV does not return all results

I actually haven’t come across these issues before, but I had a look now.

 

Issue 1:

I tested this in IFS Cloud 24.2.1 version and could not observe the issue. Tested with both Active and Negotiate statuses. May be there is a difference in the data. Can you let me know what are the object IDs that you have entered under the scope of service line 1 and 2 as well ? Line 3 is clear.

Test flow:

  1. Create a service contract with 3 lines. Line 1 scope ? Line 2 scope ? Line 3 is connected to an object structure 006, all object related options selected.
  2. Activate the contract.
  3. Create 3 PM actions for service line 2, objects 003, 004, 006 included.
  4. Create another PM Action for service line 3 - Object ID list is limited to 001, 002, 005 ?

My example: All objects displayed

 

Issue 2:

This I observed in core environment as well. For me, the setting was to display 24 lines and it displayed 12 lines and seems the lines are duplicated. And once sorted, can see more lines are there connected to line 2 as well. For this I feel it is better to report a support case, so that then we can discuss the issue with Product Development (RnD) team to check the possibilities to provide a solution.

 

Best Regards,

Thilini

www.linkedin.com/in/thilini-kumarasinghe-7ab61b78
Vimukthi Mahakumbura
1 person likes this
  • Vimukthi Mahakumbura
    Vimukthi Mahakumbura
Timmermans Roel
Hero (Partner)
Forum|alt.badge.img+12
  • Timmermans Roel
  • Author
  • Hero (Partner)
  • 180 replies
  • January 22, 2025

Hi ​@Thilini Kumarasinghe ,

 

Thank you for your initial review.The scopes used for Service Line 1 and 2 are as follows:

 

 

With regards to issue 2, I will talk to my customer on creating a ticket. 

 

Best Regards

Roel

Timmermans Roel
Hero (Partner)
Forum|alt.badge.img+12
  • Timmermans Roel
  • Author
  • Hero (Partner)
  • 180 replies
  • January 23, 2025

Hi ​@Thilini Kumarasinghe ,

 

I have tried to reproduce the error with a New Service Contract and I succeeded in reducing the amount of steps to get to the error. I think it can even be reduced more but I already wanted to share these findings.

 

Steps:

  1. Create New service Contract for Customer 184312
  2. Add ‘Service Line’ to contract
  3. Under Scope I add a Functional Object (RTI250115-001) that has a structure, and I check the tickbox ‘use Line on Structure
Service Line 1 for ‘Weekly’ maintenance
Equipment Object Navigator for Object RTI250115-001 showing the exact structure
  1. I add a Second Service Line with a different Work Type (Monthly maintenance), but also adding Scope for RTI250115-001, and ticking ‘Use Line on structure’
Service Line 2 for ‘Monthly’ maintenance

 

  1. I click ‘PM Actions’” and add my first PM action linked to Service Line 1 for Object RTI250115-001 - ALL objects of the structure are selectable
  1. I move Functional Object RTI250115-005 from parent RTI250115-002 to RTI250115-001 (1 level higher, but still within the structure of RTI250115-001)
New Equipment structure

 

  1. Trying to add a New PM action - but this time object RTI250115-005 is no longer part of the drop down

 

Strangely enough, the ‘Scope’ of the Service Line now also shows that the ‘Use Line on Structure’ is automatically disabled on both Service Lines

 

 

Moving Object RTI250115-005 back to the original position in the structure does not help. It remains unselectable.

 

Best Regards

Roel

 

 

 

Timmermans Roel
Hero (Partner)
Forum|alt.badge.img+12
  • Timmermans Roel
  • Author
  • Hero (Partner)
  • 180 replies
  • January 23, 2025

Hi ​@Thilini Kumarasinghe,

 

I did another test and it really is the ‘Move Functional Object’ that messes things up.

I tried with a different object this time (RTI250115-004). Right before the move, Functional Object RTI250115-004 is selectable in the Object drop down of the ‘PM action’. Right after the move it is no longer selectable, and the tickbox ‘Use Line on Structure’ went from ON to OFF automatically.

 

Best Regards

Roel

Thilini Kumarasinghe
Ultimate Hero (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+21

Hi ​@Timmermans Roel 

Yes, I did the same test flow in 24R2 environment and observed same behaviour. i.e. 005 object got removed from the list and also ‘Use Line on Structure’ is disabled as well.

However, I re-enabled it using the “Edit” option in the scope line and then it works fine.

 

Steps:

Click on edit option.

Enable  ‘Use Line on Structure’ and save.

 

Now, Object 005 is again visible.

 

Therefore, if an object move has been done, as per the current system, we need to re-enable the option.

 

Best Regards,

Thilini

www.linkedin.com/in/thilini-kumarasinghe-7ab61b78
Timmermans Roel
1 person likes this
  • Timmermans Roel
    Timmermans Roel
Timmermans Roel
Hero (Partner)
Forum|alt.badge.img+12
  • Timmermans Roel
  • Author
  • Hero (Partner)
  • 180 replies
  • February 4, 2025

Hi ​@Thilini Kumarasinghe,

 

Thank you for the reply. I did a test myself and I can confirm that the workaround works. Thank you for that. In the meantime, we did open an official customer ticket to IFS where we the bug has been confirmed and recognized. We are waiting for the official feedback from IFS on how to proceed.

 

Thank you for time and commitment!

 

Best Regards

Roel

Thilini Kumarasinghe
1 person likes this
  • Thilini Kumarasinghe
    Thilini Kumarasinghe
Thilini Kumarasinghe
Ultimate Hero (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+21

Hi ​@Timmermans Roel 

That’s good to know and you are most welcome !

Best Regards,

Thilini

www.linkedin.com/in/thilini-kumarasinghe-7ab61b78

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings

Cookie policy

We use cookies to enhance and personalize your experience. If you accept you agree to our full cookie policy. Learn more about our cookies.

 
Cookie settings