Read only files or "non-checked out" files, continue to be prompted for saving inside of an Inventor assembly model. Why is this happening? I know the little messages (see Vault messages below) are supposed to let you know the file is not being saved back to Vault, but something is happening. Somehow the files become edited out of turn, which means they're being saved locally somehow. Then the Vault file and the workspace file are out of sync.
Can we just remove the Vaulted "read only" files from the assembly save dialog all together?
Is it possible to not change the local file in the certain way that makes Vault see it out of sync?
I have Vaulted released files that are part of assemblies that are checked out for editing and somehow the parts of the assembly that are not checked out seem to always become out of sync.
Also, some of these parts are iParts.
Please give this post Kudos if you have the "read only" file out of sync with Vault issue.
Autodesk: Please consider my request. Thanks.
"Write enable (not checked out from Vault)"
"'XXXXXX.iam' is currently locked. Do you want to continue editing anyway? Your changes will not get saved to the Vault."
I've known this issue has existed from about day one in Productstream and now Vault Pro, but it's time that this security issue is fixed. I feel its a major defect, but they tell me it's "AS DESIGNED".
If you are using items, this has the potential to be costly to your organization. It allows users to print an older version of a file which has been revised and it still shows the water mark of "RELEASED". All without any kind of warning.
We are dealing with items and when an item has several revisions and you toggle back thru the revisions, the drawings linked to that revision still have a water mark of released, even though the drawing is an old - revised drawing.
The attached video illustrates this disaster waiting to happen.
There has to be a way to prevent the printing of older drawings with "RELEASED" on them. The water mark should say "VOIDED Drawing" or the like when a user toggles the revision level back. Any guidance here on how to fix this issue?
The Vault search text box displays "Search Projects" or "Search Vault Explorer ($)" - often when clicking in the search text box the default text is not cleared and what ever is typed is added to the default text. The result is that the search is not done correctly.
This behaviour is shown in the attached screen shot.
According to Autodesk Customer Support this behaviour has existed for several releases of the Vault.
I would like the search box default text to clear when clicking in the box to enter data.
Vault Feature Request: When you obsolete an item it should obsolete all previous revisions, released or not.
Obsolete Items are still viewable in Web Client because some previous revisions are released
Ref: previous Autodesk case 09411810 and new Autodesk case 09515277
Also see attached Word doc with relevant context as "Obsolete Item scenario - public.doc"
The customer has the advised workflow and has asked for this feature request case be opened with Autodesk to obsolete all previous revisions, released or not.
The reasoning is so that Web Client users cannot access parts in error that are no longer in production.
The business case for this company involves 35 seats of Vault Pro 2014 and several dozen more Vault Web Client users at multiple sites routinely relying upon the accuracy of parts that are accessible as 'in production'.
They do not want obsolete parts being requisitioned or ordered as parts of extensive bills of material, for example.
They understand that this feature request will likely not be made available in Vault 2014. They have the workflow workaround in place as an alternative as detailed in the attached Obsolete Item scenario - public.doc
As a company we want to have "Auto-Select First Duplicate" item checked as a default. Please make this a global Vault Item setting vs a client side setting. We have new users all the time and this setting seems to get overlooked a lot which in turn generates a bunch of random item numbers. It would be best to control it globally.