Revsion table

[tegstette]

Hello

I have set up my Vault revsion table as shown in picture.

But when I check in an idw and check it out again the description-field is overwritten by Vault.

The descripton-field is coming from  iproperty Comments. 

Should I set the Vault property for Description to blank? Or is there something else I should do?

Any advice?

Best Regards

TG

[Cadmanto]

TG,

We had the very same issue, but with our revision column.  When we would check out the drawing the revision in the previous line would revert to the newly created rev.  We had our VAR in and the conclusion was to just manually change the revision and take out the ability for Vault to drive it.

You prompted me to create an idea on the vault idea forum.  Please feel free to lend your support of it.

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Autodesk-Vault-IdeaStation/Fix-the-Drawing-Revision-Table-Communicatio...

If this solved your issue please mark this posting "Accept as Solution".

Or if you like something that was said and it was helpful, Kudos are appreciated. Thanks!!!! 

     

[cbenner]

Not sure of your workflow, but...

We created a UDP to handle the description in our Rev table.  We do NOT fill that in at the drawing level.  We place the table on the drawing, check it in and the FROM VAULT we edit properties and fill in all of the properties that apply to the Rev table for this rev level.  Then we set it to released, and back to quick change.  Then I use sync properties and voila... the table updates, without even having to reopen the drawing.  BUT:  First read through this blog post that explains how to make this magic work.

http://underthehood-autodesk.typepad.com/blog/2012/11/diy-revision-table-manually-updating-your-revi...

Bear in mind this only works with Vault Professional.  If you have a lower level, you could do the same thing... but instead of sync props you would have to probably re-open the CAD file and Get Revision and Update Properties to populate the Vault rev table.  Rev table will ONLY show released revisions.  That's why we use the "set to released, then quick change" manuever.  It takes a bit of playing to get the right workflow, so try it out on test files that you can delete from the Vault later.

Now that I have thoroughly confused you....

[Cadmanto]

Thanks Chris.  I will check it out. 

We have Vault workgroup.  One problem I may see is that we like to keep our previous revisions on the drawing.

So, not sure how that would work.   Also some of our descriptions can get wordy.  So, that might be another issue.

Our biggest problem was what I described earlier in my last posting and in the idea.

If this solved your issue please mark this posting "Accept as Solution".

Or if you like something that was said and it was helpful, Kudos are appreciated. Thanks!!!! 

     

[alan_ho]

Hi TG,

The reason why you are seeing this is because:

• When you have the Vault Revision Table (VRT) feature enabled; Vault takes over whatever mappings you have done in Inventor; this is why the mapped description field contains static values;
• The VRT is only uni-direction; it captures only released information (for those mapped fields) and place them into the drawing's revision table;
• Since you are at Revision A which is not in a released state, that value is null in the Vault and therefore it is cleared by this feature.

By default, the VRT will populate description with the mapped field according to the version that was initially released.

i.e. if you have the following:

Version 1, Revision A, WIP, Comment = "Awaiting review"

Version 2, Revision A, Released, Comment = "Released for production"

Version 3, Revision A, Released, Comment = "Updated by Job Processor"

What happens to the above is that the revision table will display "Released for production" which is at version 2.

While working on version 1 (or any version pre-release), the mapped fields will be empty for that revision.

The intent of this feature is have the mapped fields populated with released information so that it marks data that is (or are) true for production or official purposes for the corresponding revisions.

If you wish to have an entry that is not associated with Vault data, I suggest that you leave the (Description-Comment) mapping blank so the VRT will not tamper with that column during an update.

[tegstette]

Thank you all for your replies and information

I will leave the mapping blank. Seems like that is a good solution for us.

Best regards

TG