Can we please be a little more descriptive in the error messages?
I get a message that tells me I cannot move a specific file in the vault from one location to another.
The message reads "File Cannot be moved" looking at the details it says "File could not be moved due to vault error"
Really? Why couldn't it have explained to the detail of saying one of the factory files was checked out causing this file not to be moved. This is just one example. I would like to see all messages be a little more descriptive.
Side note. I would like to see less messages as well. That is more of how the software is written though.
The Lifecycle Event Editor is currently available only through the Vault SDK. However the tool is not just for custom programmers. For example, it's used to configure Project Sync. Making it part of the Vault client would make admin tasks more convenient.
We are trying to add a stamp or Water mark in the file preview based on life cycle state change. There should be a option in the API to do so, based on the requirement in life cycle state change. Even tried to check if any event is assosiated with preview tab click.
When it is being sold as the integration point for Vault, the Item Master is inadequate.
First, lifecycles for items should be as configurable as for files. If you use the system as intended and control the lifecycle of the file through the item, you are severely constricted.
Items should assume the properties of the files that created them, or they should be easily called through the API.
Given the possibility that an item could be created before the CAD representation exists, there needs to be an ability to attach a CAD file as a representation of an item after the item has been created (this is also a huge hurdle if a company converts a product from 2D to 3D).
Document item types should exist so that external applications can reference and control files that don't represent parts.
OR do away with the item master and integrate the BOM capabilities (for 2D and 3D) of item master into the file interface and do away with item master altogether.
This would probably help with any plm integration, PLM360 included.
Going through an implementation of vault, the lack of the option for a multi-list as a property type is very limiting when it comes to integration.
This may be a limitation that stems from matching the capability of the authoring tools, but those could stand to be updated as well. Alternatively, there could be a translation that would take a comma separated list in a property or attribute into a multi-list property.