Hi @clint1028,As Buddhika already said, the complete BOM structure with all the parts it contains can be transferred and created as a inventory part. It is not relevant which transfer type you select. What is relevant is that you select "All Level Transfer" for the transfer level:With "Single Level", only the selected part with the components it contains is transferred, but no further levels below it.I hope this has helped to clarify the situation.
Hi Pierre,Unfortunately, the attachments are not visible (at least not to me).Have you checked whether there is a configured connection between the technical drawing revision and the material line of the component here in the Object Connection Transformations?
Hi @djsteiger,Yes, this is currently only possible as described by @Buddhika Kurera above.And for me, this is also a valid requirement that is still missing here in the PDM basic data and in the technical characteristics (as well as the possibility of translations). If you come up with an idea, please link it here so that we can all support it. Thank you very much.
Part documents that should be available throughout the entire supply chain should ideally be attached as high up as possible (main part, inventory part revision, etc.). This allows them to be automatically passed on to other objects (purchase parts, orders, shop orders).Since CLOUD, there is also a separate location for the technical drawing: I hope this helps as an approach.
Hi Dylan,That is a question that probably belongs here: 😉https://community.ifs.com/supply-chain-251
Hi Dylan,Yes, this is the identical behaviour. A new revision will always be created for the first transfer. This is a fixed basic logic. Then the logic is applied as already described above by @dameenda .
Hi Dylan,I don't quite understand this one:The all-level part transfer causes an issue with part revisions for items that already existed in inventory. Any part that existed in inventory prior to the transfer gets a new rev.If the inventory part already exists and nothing has changed in this part, this part is skipped during the transfer. It is important that the creation of the inventory part was also previously implemented via the transfer and not, for example, via the "Create Inventory Part" function from the Eng Part page or manually.
Hi @YEmreBol,If you save it this way, you do not officially have it as Used for Identification in IFS. But if you only ever have 1 GTIN per part, with configurations in the report design you can still have it printed or send it in messages. This is then purely a matter of configuration. 😉
Hi,No, that’s not possible. The logic is such that you can set several GTINs as Used for Identification = Yes. And one of these GTINs must then be Default = Yes.What kind of use case do you have where you want Used for Identification = Yes and Default = No?
Hi Sutoto,I have not yet had to use templates with AQL. But if you can reproduce this, create a support ticket and report this as a standard bug. This is the best way to get a quick improvement. And keep us up to date here after the support contact. Many thanks in advance./Mike
Hi Robert,See here:
...unfortunately I'm the wrong person. You need someone with developer knowledge. It is therefore best to request a corresponding requirement from your IFS customer contact.Best regards,Mike
Hi Bryant,As Mathias already mentioned, adding an additional file to an existing Doc Rev is usually not a good way.What you can do if you have e.g. a manual in several languages is to add it as a new page to the same Doc No using this function “New Sheet”: I hope this helps,Mike
Hi Anita,Since in most cases the transfer of the note values to the new revision is desired, I do not think that this will be changed in future updates.However, you have the option of deleting the note field with an event as soon as a new revision has been created. Then you have solved it for your use case.I hope this helps,Mike
Hi Âdil,Your IFS screenshot is only a overview page. Normally you use the Purchasing Analyses or Shop Order Analyses page: And here you have the same as in your old system: I hope this helps. Best regards,Mike
Hi @Vernon Anderson,With @matt.watters' solution, you can use practically all objects, as he has already shown.What I don't understand about your example (a drawing without a part) is in which use case this can be. From my experience of more than 12 years, I have at least the Part Catalogue or even the Eng Part for a drawing in IFS.Regards, Mike
Isn't a background job triggered when this function is started? You should then see the error message.I also suspect that the problem is due to the "Structure Update = Restricted" setting, as Matt has already mentioned.
Hello,The difficulty is that the expiration date is only available in a sub-table. And in this sub-table there can be more than one entry for a count per stock item. This means that you would have to create a custom field in the header area that displays the oldest date for the respective stock item from the rows in the sub-table. Then you can use this in the search. Would that already help you? Best regards,Mike
Hi,If you select the trigger type Time interval and 1 day, this means that a new analysis is created every 24 hours. The rule is that with each trigger type ALWAYS at each start a first analysis is created and then in the set interval. However, since you always work only 8h per day on this operation and then stop again and start the next day (where by the new start immediately again an analysis is created) you never come to this day runtime (24h). This is the reason why you don't get to your expected behavior. As long as you don't work on this operation without stop for at least 24h, the setting 1 day doesn't bring you anything.Does this help you? Best regards,Mike
Hi Lorraine,Use the advanced search here: And then you can enter the following search here and save it: ApprovalStatus = null 😉 Hope this helps you. Best regards,Mike
Hi Ron,I had a similar requirement at a customer. However, we had no choice but to implement it via a modification. I think you won't get around that either. It's best to contact your consultant and do a process analysis with him for your case.Cheers, Mike
Hi,The field description on the Part Master Data > Assortment page says the following:A unique identifier to define a part according to the classification standard. The classification part number helps to identify a part based on the industry it belongs to.At the end it is a free text field with 25 characters to build up an additional classification if needed. It is not a mandatory field, so if there is no use in the use case it does not need to be filled.
Hi @Mathias Dahl, yes gladly. Customers assign document classes based on various criteria. The top criterion is the assignment of authorization groups. The document types are also differentiated (e.g. customer request, customer quotation, customer order, etc.). This results in the number of areas/departments quickly times 40-50 document classes. However, it is possible to clearly define which document classes are to be used for which object. So on the one hand it can be limited that wrong classes are used and on the other hand the selection which is available becomes much clearer. E.g. with a customer order the class customer order stands to the selection, however not the class supplier quotation, since this has to look there nothing.I did not understand until today why this possibility is not available in the standard, because this could be solved quite simply over a basis data table in which one can assign the permitted document classes if necessary per logical unit similarly as in t
Hi @Mathias Dahl,Thank you for your input. Yes, that is possible, but it only takes effect after I have selected something that I am not allowed to. Because the selection list then remains with all Doc Class. And that makes it unfortunately not user-friendly. I hope that there will be something in the standard, because I hear this request again and again. Thanks for your support. Regards, Mike
Hi @SILSCONNOR,Unfortunately, that is still not possible at the moment. But there is something that comes reasonably close. Here about Doc Class management (see also here the similar post):See also here the similar post here in the community. Regards, Mike
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
