Hi @david.harmer ,Sorry for the late reply. No, I did not get anyway with this, and we had to choose another solution for completely other reasons anyway. The technical documentation is not updated either, at least not for 23r2, which is the current version I’m working with./ Kenneth
Thanks for the quick reply Björn!A moment of service :-)We will proceed with a support ticket. BR / Kenneth
Hi,It may or may not be installed - I think it is optional so it may require a separate license./ Kenneth
Hi,Since the work center is set on the operation, a shop order is not really connected to a work center in itself. So it would most certainly involve a customization. The closest we get with standard is to use different routing alternatives with different work centers, but you will have to create the shop order anyway first, since you cannot set the alternative before creating the shop order. It can be an option if you have many operations that will all run on the same work center.If we think a bit differently, you have the option to move between work centers after creating the shop order using Visual Shop Order Operations Planning. A good option if you have only one or few operations to change./ Kenneth
Update: the problem disappeared after the daily shutdown and restart of the environment. But it would be good with a better method of resolving this situation if it happens again.
Hi Mathias,Thanks for your quick answer! I don’t think we will need to use spaces or other odd characters in our document classes or numbers. We just happened to test with one and realized that it did not work in the browser and that we did not understand why it looked that way. But of course it could also be good for you to test the escape functionality to see if it actually results in working urls./ Kenneth
Update: this issue was solved after some digging by our tech team: the password used in the connection contained “illegal” characters, somewhat indicated by the numbers in the out of bounds message. I don’t think allowed/disallowed characters in passwords are documented with IFS Connect, so that would be something for IFS to improve on.
Update: we verified that it works in 23R1 but it also “started to work” mysteriously also in 22R2, so the reason for the error we had with the standard functionality is unknown. However, we have problems with a similar custom command that seem to persist. Does anybody know if security checkpoint is supposed to work with bulk commands (select multiple rows) or only with single?
Thanks for the quick answer. OK, so let’s assume this will be fixed with our upcoming upgrade to 23R1, then. We’ll verify with one of those environments.
Hi again and thanks Mats, the low level code was the clue that made us solve the problem finally:We are creating new structures by migration jobs into IFS Applications 8. Then we are upgrading the database to IFS Cloud. This means that the low level code is never set to -1 for the migrated parts, which would otherwise trigger the low level calculation. If I do any structure change on the site in IFS Cloud, the low level calculation will be triggered and the PMRP will generate proposals and action messages as expected. As discussed, we can also run the Cumulative Lead Time calculation either before or after the upgrade to get correct low level codes.Cheers,Kenneth
One thing confuses me about the low level code calculation, though. I cannot see any status information about it in the background job, either in the working scenario or the non-working scenario. But I can see that in the code there is a section that inserts one “...low level code calculation started at...”
Hello Mats!I’m still digging but keeping you posted in case you come up with some. With your latest clues I have come this far:Part status is active with all supplies and demands allowed. The issue looks data related (or perhaps permissions related) - it exists in an upgraded environment but when I set up a similar scenario in my dev environment it works as expected. Low level code is 0 also for the component Action proposals are different depending on type of PMRP run: With selective or per PNG I get one “Negative onhand” for the compent, but no “Need orders”. With per activity I get none. So, I’ll have to investigate where the upgraded scenario differs from the dev scenario...Best regards,Kenneth
We are running IFS Cloud 22R2 on prem. The message is the standard Send Voucher message from FINCON in JSON format. We are (trying to) send it to an integration service using HTTP sender and an HTTP routing address. We have tried a couple of different settings on Additional headers, but so far no success.
Thanks Peter, now it’s clear enough for us to proceed - we have some customizations that may be covered by this new functionality (or not), depending on the user requirements.
Hi Peter, thanks for the quick reply. We’ll see if we can set it up that way. To me it seems a bit strange to have all standards in the same ranking hierarchy, especially if we operate globally. How would e g an american quality standard be ranked vs a european quality standard? And if there are several standards the number of possible combinations could be many. Was that discussed during the design?
Well, I guess I found the answer here https://community.ifs.com/products-manufacturing-products-engineering-40/mrp-with-schedule-smoothing-leveling-heijunka-907
Hi again. After some investigation we got it working. We put the element in a new lobby and then it worked. Then we removed the elements and parameters from the old lobby and put them back again. Then that lobby also worked. So the problem was somehow related to the parameters in the lobby, but we do not know exactly what it was. Anyway, if we run into the same problem again, we think we know how to fix it: rebuild the lobby.
To clarify the above, I mean that there is not a problem with projection based data sources in general, but there is a problem if you want to use lobby parameters.
Hi Chamara, I did some more experimenting. You’re right - they do work. The problem in my case is that the lobby datasource works until I add my filter using a lobby parameter: Contract eq $SITE$. Then it does not want to show itself in the lobby, although the preview works. I tested this using the InventoryPartHandling projection as a base, and an element counting part numbers per site (contract). Then after removing the filter in the lobby datasource, it does not seem to want to come back into a working state again until I do some change in the lobby element. This is somewhat logical based on your previous comment, I guess the lobby element gets re-deployed when I change it. But projection-based lobby datasources should also be able to handle lobby parameters, right? Is there another syntax for passing parameters to projection-based lobby datasources?
OK, thanks for the clarification. We will have a discussion internally - since we already have a solution in place with shop orders, I guess the issue will be of lower priority also here. But I’ll make sure to give some more info in an idea request.
Hi Mathias, it’s nice to be back in touch too :-) And thanks for the quick reply. The question arises from an upgrade project to IFS Cloud and the information is used on some 1.4M documents in the customer’s database. It is used to track the origins of the document (e g which CAD system it came from) and also where it is stored externally (outside of docman). It is of medium or low priority, though. If I understand you correct the underlying tables will still be kept in the upgrade and in that case we may consider some appropriate tailoring (custom tab etc), or moving the information to other fields in the upgrade as you suggest./ Kenneth
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your 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.
