Skip to main content

I have a question that >>>>

 

When an attachment (document object) in current LU (LU-2) is inherited (sourced) from another LU (LU-1) through an Object Connection Transformation, the attachment in the LU-2 does not appear in a new LU (LU-3) when the OCT has been configured for LU-2 and LU-3. The attachments originally attached to the LU-2 is successfully transferred to LU-3. Is this how the functionality works (limitation ?) ?

 

Actually, the requirement is to transfer the attachments in the ShopOrderOperation LU (for outside operations where a purchase order is connected) to PurchaseOrderLinePart LU. For that, there is an in-built (system-defined) OCT. It works for attachments attached to the ShopOrderOperation LU itself. But, there are attachments inherited from other OCTs (from InventoryPart, EngPartRevision, etc), and these are not transferring to the PO line with that OCT setup. I think this is a limitation of the OCT ?

 

However, I created a custom field (column) in the Purchase Order Line to represent the manufacturing part of the shop order to show in the PO line (to create separate OCTs from InventoryPart, EngPartRevision to PurchaseOrderLinePart, so that the original attachments in those LUs will show in the PO line). But, the custom fields are not appearing in the Edit Transformation dialog box as a column to mapped with.

 

Any suggestions on how to achieve this ?

 

Thanks,

 

Thushitha

 

@Mathias Dahl hope you may have something to add.

I have a question that >>>>

 

When an attachment (document object) in current LU (LU-2) is inherited (sourced) from another LU (LU-1) through an Object Connection Transformation, the attachment in the LU-2 does not appear in a new LU (LU-3) when the OCT has been configured for LU-2 and LU-3. The attachments originally attached to the LU-2 is successfully transferred to LU-3. Is this how the functionality works (limitation ?) ?

 

Actually, the requirement is to transfer the attachments in the ShopOrderOperation LU (for outside operations where a purchase order is connected) to PurchaseOrderLinePart LU. For that, there is an in-built (system-defined) OCT. It works for attachments attached to the ShopOrderOperation LU itself. But, there are attachments inherited from other OCTs (from InventoryPart, EngPartRevision, etc), and these are not transferring to the PO line with that OCT setup. I think this is a limitation of the OCT ?

 

However, I created a custom field (column) in the Purchase Order Line to represent the manufacturing part of the shop order to show in the PO line (to create separate OCTs from InventoryPart, EngPartRevision to PurchaseOrderLinePart, so that the original attachments in those LUs will show in the PO line). But, the custom fields are not appearing in the Edit Transformation dialog box as a column to mapped with.

 

Any suggestions on how to achieve this ?

 

Thanks,

 

Thushitha

 

Unfortunately, this is a known limitation and you can currently only inherit one level. You’d have to write an event to insert the document link on the other entities or do a modification to extend the OCT capabilities for your use cases. 

Hi,

Yes, this is a limitation of the OCT concept - you cannot "chain" OCT rules. We get questions about it from time to time but we have not looked into it yet. I think we would need to be careful adding such capabilities. Adding OCT rules already makes things slower, enabling chaining them together would not make things faster and there might be a risk for circular rules and other nasty things. So I think we want to avoid this until the pressure becomes higher to look into this.

The correct way to solve this is to write a new transformation method that does a "direct" transformation from LU-1 to LU-3, like how we have already done it for many rules that are shipped with the product.

That's a modification, for sure, but a very "safe" one, perhaps even safer than to use a custom event, even if the latter is not officially a modification...

Good luck!

/Mathias
 

Thank you very much @anmise and @Mathias Dahl  for this information.

@Vanzoezm had a follow-up question on this:

The answer is the same as last time, so you can read it above 🙂 

 

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings