Skip to main content
Solved

Revision No Not Listed for Export Controlled Part

  • June 1, 2026
  • 3 replies
  • 25 views
matt.watters
Ultimate Hero (Partner)
Forum|alt.badge.img+26

25.1.7

I have a  part with two Part Revisions, 1 and 2.

This is an Export Controlled Part. When I want to assign a Primary Classification, Classification Scheme, and Export Control Code, neither Part Revision 1 or 2 is listed in the Revision No dropdown.

Why are these revisions not in the dropdown?

The field description for Revision No:

The revision number of the part. If the part has had several revisions, the revision number will be stated. The revision number is automatically generated by the system. This is the number that designates a current or past version of a part or assembly. If IFS/Manufacturing Standards is not installed, the Part Revision value is set to 1. If IFS/Manufacturing Standards is installed, the value is retrieved from the Revision No field on the Manufacturing Standards/Part Revision and Attributes/Part Revision page. When registering purchase order arrival the value is retrieved from the respective purchase order line. For a number of transactions where a relevant revision number cannot be set, e.g., inventory revaluation, direct shipment from supplier to customer, and consignment stock, the value is set to blank or an asterisk (*). You can change this value if more than one revision for this part exists.

Best answer by Piyal Perera

Hi ​@matt.watters

 Sharing my findings from a recent Cursor-assisted code audit. I hope these insights are beneficial.

This is expected behavior, not a product defect. The Revision field does not use Manufacturing Part Revisions (Part Catalog / MFGSTD). It uses Engineering Part Revisions from PDMCON.

So the dropdown lists rows from ENG_PART_REVISION_TAB (Engineering → Engineering Part Revisions), not from Manufacturing Standards → Part Revision (PART_REVISION_TAB).

If your part only has Manufacturing Part Revisions (e.g. Eng Chg Level 1 and 2 under Part Revisions), those will not appear here unless matching Engineering Part Revisions exist for the same part.

regards,

Piyal

If a response resolves your issue, please use "Best Answer" so that the thread can be closed and others can find solutions more easily. Regards - Matt

3 replies

Piyal Perera
Hero (Employee)
Forum|alt.badge.img+12
  • Piyal Perera
  • Hero (Employee)
  • Answer
  • June 3, 2026

Hi ​@matt.watters

 Sharing my findings from a recent Cursor-assisted code audit. I hope these insights are beneficial.

This is expected behavior, not a product defect. The Revision field does not use Manufacturing Part Revisions (Part Catalog / MFGSTD). It uses Engineering Part Revisions from PDMCON.

So the dropdown lists rows from ENG_PART_REVISION_TAB (Engineering → Engineering Part Revisions), not from Manufacturing Standards → Part Revision (PART_REVISION_TAB).

If your part only has Manufacturing Part Revisions (e.g. Eng Chg Level 1 and 2 under Part Revisions), those will not appear here unless matching Engineering Part Revisions exist for the same part.

regards,

Piyal

Piyal
matt.watters
Ultimate Hero (Partner)
Forum|alt.badge.img+26
  • matt.watters
  • Author
  • Ultimate Hero (Partner)
  • June 3, 2026

​@Piyal Perera what is required to correct the Field Description documentation that reads “...If IFS/Manufacturing Standards is not installed, the Part Revision value is set to 1. If IFS/Manufacturing Standards is installed, the value is retrieved from the Revision No field on the Manufacturing Standards/Part Revision and Attributes/Part Revision page...”?

This documentation does not mention using the Engineering Part Revision.

It appears this Field Description is mistakenly copied from the field on the Inventory Transactions History page.

If a response resolves your issue, please use "Best Answer" so that the thread can be closed and others can find solutions more easily. Regards - Matt
    Piyal Perera
    Hero (Employee)
    Forum|alt.badge.img+12
    • Piyal Perera
    • Hero (Employee)
    • June 3, 2026

    Hi ​@matt.watters,

       Ok. I got it. You’re correct; that appears to be a copy-paste error. I will verify it against IFS APP10 and apply the change. This documentation correction will be included in the next release. Thank you for flagging this!

    regards,

    Piyal

    Piyal
      Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement