More Intuitive Error Messages

[Cadmanto]

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.

Probably a different idea for a different day. 

[Mark_Wigan]

error - some items in the original selection are no longer available. please refresh and try performing the operation again.

this is an error message we see in the following circumstance:

setup a search, find all target files (in this case all dwf files that belong to a lifecycle state), delete large batches of these found files... immediately after successful delete, we see the error message that says we need to refresh and perform the operation again.

that is fine, we click ok and finish, however when you have just deleted 1000 dwf files, the error is displayed for each one. even hitting escape key 1000 times can take a while.

i wonder if we need to have this error message displayed in such a fashion?

one or two clicks should be enough. even the opportunity to refresh or restart the search again as another button option on this error message should be enough to kill it ?

many thanks for you consideration.

[john.laidler]

More explanation of the error will be given in the 'details' section of the error message.

[Cadmanto]

Like I said in my idea posting, the details portion barely said anything more then the original message.  I am looking for a more descripitive, exact pin point direction on where to look or at least closer to where the real issue is.

[Redmond.D]

Just to add to this idea.  I think it would also be cool if the errors had a link to a wiki page.  That way additional descriptions and workarounds could be posted as they are discovered.

[Cadmanto]

Yes, yes, I agree!!!

But with that said, as long as the wiki page explains it well.  Which I figure you are saying it would.

[aurelien.berthelot]

Hello
Can you improve wording of error messaging in order to be understandable by people who haven't code this thing...

currently we have this kind of thing (jobprocessor error):
"Index (zero based) must be greater than or equal to zero and less than the size of the argument list"

Clear, isn't it ?

[Cadmanto]

Ok, here is one for the ages.  A co-worker got this message while trying to do a copy design in Vault.

Again, what the heck does it mean?  Catastrophic?  Is the monitor going to blow up? 

[Josh_Hunt]

Let me know if this should be a different post/idea.

Can we please remove the "Details" button. In my experience the average user doesn't even "see" the button. The button only hides relevant information from the user.

I'm curious what prompted the creation of the "Details" button in the first place?

[tmoney2007]

The number of times that I talk to support and get the response of "that is a generic error, check everything out, rebuild and check it back in" is infuriating.

Operating in a large vault where we would rather not frivolously create new file iterations and where there is change control that keeps normal users from being able to check files out and back in, checking all of the files out and back in becomes an admin task.

We need errors and logging that allows us to track down the FILE OR FILES that are causing the issues, not just that there is an issue with a related file.

Failing that, can we quit pretending like 90% of the errors are thrown actually mean something and if there isn't going to be meaningful information just throw up an error that says "SOMETHING IS WRONG" so that we don't waste time trying to read into the error and we can just move onto checking everything out and back in again?

[Redmond.D]

I see no reason for Vault to use numeric codes to represent errors.  It would be much better if the error codes used words instead.  For example, "InvalidUserPassword" is a much more useful error code than "301".

[PACDrafting]

Please add this!

[Neil_Cross]

TLDR; Please make the Vault error messages more meaningful, and directly reflect and represent the problem that occurred.

For those with time to read some evidence and a back story...

Error messages are commonplace in Autodesk applications, Inventor has some ridiculously comical error messages but I'll limit this to Vault feedback. To briefly summarise the nature of this thread... I'd like to begin by saying that many error messages presented to the user whilst using Vault, are as meaningful and informative as seeing a picture of a hand with a text caption saying "NOT GONNA HAPPEN".

The majority of error messages in Vault mean absolutely nothing, even to us folk who understand the product very well, they're essentially a pointless slap in the face following an unexplained application failure. I could give dozens of examples but I'll stick to a recent one I experienced an hour ago.

"Error 1200, An error occurred due to a communication failure between client and server"

I had an Inventor assembly called AB1234, this assembly had 50 child assemblies which all contained their own child parts. I was assigning an Item to AB1234, but the process failed during the Item assign process. Kicked me out. Couldn't create an Item for AB1234.

Why though? Error 1200 is why, an error occurred due to a communication failure between client and server apparently.

On face value, not only does this mean absolutely nothing to anyone, but it sounds quite serious. I'd like to make a point of saying that this is Vault Pro 2013 with all the patches applied, SP1 Update 2 at time of writing this.

So I checked out AB1234, saved it, rebuild all, update assembly, modify BOM tag, save it again, check in, update file references... same error, can't create the Item.

Do you know what the problem was in the end? Probably not, and that's my point.

One of the sub assemblies, that I was NOT assigning an Item to, in fact it was a phantom assembly, let's call it PH4321. Although on face value completely normal and fault free, this IAM needed to be checked out and saved before I could assign an Item to it's parent. I can only assume the internal BOM blob for that reference was knackered in some way, but like I said on face value as it appeared in Vault client... there was nothing wrong with it. I had to manually dig through every sub-assembly before I found the one with the problem.

I'm not asking for help, I'm not asking for anyone to explain why I had to do what I had to do. What I'm asking is why is Vault incapable of providing me with an error message which tells me what the problem is? Vault could not assign an Item to AB1234 because PH4321 was faulty in some way, VAULT KNEW THAT! It knew that because it stopped and failed because of PH4321!! It didn't even tell me that the problem had nothing to do with the physical file I was assigning an Item to! It was a child assembly!

You can claim time savings and productivity gains due to X, Y and Z new features all you want, but stuff like this effectively nullifies any time saving brought by Vault when I have to spend hours of my time playing stupid hide and seek games. Vault knows what the problem is, but gives me a nonsensical error message forcing me to manually use my own experience and technical skills to find out what it already knows, but doesn't want to tell me.

So please, please, either make more of an effort to stamp out these silly program faults or give me useful information to work for with when I come across them. Reference the faulty data in the messages, point me in a direction, give me some idea, anything. If this is too difficult, please replace these meaningless error messages with pictures of kittens or the womens Brazilian Bikini Beach Volley Ball team annual calendar... surprise me with which month of the year I'll get on the next Vault error.

[tmoney2007]

I don't care if they are numbers. It actually makes them a bit easier to research on the internet. My issue is when the error doesn't provide any info or the text that is provided is flat out misleading.

[scottwayand]

To add on, I agree with Josh above - the details button needs to go away.  Display that info right from the beginning.  My first troubleshooting step seems to always be to ask the user "did you expand the error and read what the details said"?  The answer is usually "no".

[drawings]

Pinpointing the file or item that is having the issue would narrow down the focus to deal with it. I had a copy design issue where I wanted to replace the reference file. I had made several derivatives of a large model and wanted to reuse an ipn from one derivative on another.

It told me "Object reference not set to an instance of an object." This is cryptic enough without knowing which file was causing the problem.

Other helpful info.

Knowing which object was not referencing?

What kind of object is it?

What was the reference from the original that it is trying to reconnect?

This is typical of Vault and Inventor that they don't identify the objects involved. Identify as much as possible in the terms used by the interface and not by the program.

[ThomasRambach]

How many times do we as Vault users or as CAD admins see Vault messages like this?

Or, when Vault is having a particularly bad day and wants to be rude, like this:

What do you do if you are the system administrator? Contacting yourself resolves nothing.

So maybe you get savvy and look though the Vault log files:

5/21/2019 3:42:03 PM *******************************************************************
Error: Soap Exception ( mesg-id = 636940501234649665 )
Exception: UnspecifiedSystemException [0] 
Stacktrace: 

Exception(Inner): Index was out of range. Must be non-negative and less than the size of the collection.
Parameter name: index
Stacktrace(Inner):

Soap exception? We're running an Engineering operation here, not a Bath & Bodyworks... must be programmer jargon.

Why is this so frustrating? Well, most CAD people have 10,000 other things to do and deciphering Vault hieroglyphics is not one you particularly enjoy.

So you do what every good CAD person would do and refer to the one source of sanity... Google. Ah yes, the path of endless possibilities and delight:

The good news? Google returned the results in 0.42 seconds. Whew! What a time saver. The bad news? It returned 70,600 results. Oh crap. Well, let's get started...

Hold on. No no, let me go directly to the Autodesk forums:

217 results. But why do I see results from way back to Vault 2010? Ugh. Time for an Autodesk support ticket:

Now I wait a couple of hours... and bam! a response. Thank you Autodesk!

Thanks for submitting a support ticket. Can you please send us your Vault data so we can investigate your issue?

Uhhhh, sure... let me email you the 1 terabyte backup zip file. 

You know what, let me just email my Autodesk contacts and go from there...

Back to the root of the issue. The error messages from Vault are way too cryptic. They should be clear and concise and offer assistance without a dead end. I would prefer if they contained a directly link to the current FAQ regarding the message.

In the case of the error message show, I was attempting to move a folder of files and Vault returned the Vague error. What does it mean? What actually is causing the issue in Vault? What do I need to do? I'm an admin, just do it. I don't want excuses from my software too.

So this idea submission is two parts:

1. More user and admin friendly error messages with suggested resolutions.
2. Admin overrides to workaround errors and allow the actions to be completed when possible.

[ihayesjr]

As we continuously try to improve in this area, I am going to set this to implemented.