I’m sorry, I have been out of the office for a week and haven’t been able to get back to you. I do have an update that is a workaround for this. It appears that every time Fabrication CAM opens a job, it creates duplicate connectors that are appended with the job name (whatever connectors that are contained within the job). We had been opening these jobs using an administrative user name that had rights to modify and overwrite the database, and therefore, all of these appended connectors have been written to our database, and there were several multiples, because every time the job was opened, it would create new appended connectors.
Our solution was just to open every job as a user without rights to modify the database. It is kind of a pain, but it is the only way that we could figure it out. To modify anything in the database, we use a different user and do not open a job, or use CAD, or the database editor.
Please let me know if you have further suggestions.
Thanks,
Ben


##- Please type your reply above this line –##

Hello @bdean123456 ,

 

I was able to talk to a couple colleagues about this, and we were able to come up with two scenarios that could cause this behavior:

• If the jobs you are opening up where created in a different configuration, they are adding their items to your database. Make sure jobs are created and used in the same configuration to prevent this. 
• If the connectors were created in the configuration, and added to jobs, then deleted from the configuration, each job will start adding them back when opened up. 
  • You can right click any of the connections, and select 'Make permanent' to add them back to the database.  

Some info regarding these scenarios and purging out the added items form the database can be found here: Purge Database | Fabrication Products 2017 | Autodesk Knowledge Network

I don’t think that is the issue that I am having. For my test jobs (that still cause the described issue) I started a new job and added fittings from the existing database. Upon getting your last email, I wondered if the permanency was the issue, but it looks like all of the connectors that I am using are permanent. Thank you again for your help.

Are you able to record a screencast ( How to use Autodesk Screencast to document a support issue | Revit Products | Autodesk Knowledge Net... ) of creating a new job, adding fittings that exist in the database, saving/closing the job, and reopening it to see the connectors with  {new.job.name} added unexpectedly to the list of connectors in the database?

Okay, I have downloaded screencast successfully and created a video. I did realize while creating it, that for this phenomenon to occur, I need to open and edit the database while in the job... as an administrator. This is not something that would normally happen, but has happened quite often in our scenario as we are still setting up the database to be how we want it.
Here is the link to the screencast:
https://autode.sk/2FLxSME

That is odd, let me try and reproduce on our end using these same steps, and see if I get the same odd behavior, or if things work differently on our end. That should start to narrow things down. I'll keep you updated with what we can find. 

Hello @bdean123456 ,

 

Thank you for recording that screencast! After reviewing, and following the same steps you are taking, I'm still not able to reproduce this. Are you able to share the job created, saved in ESJ format?  You should be able to choose ESJ when using file>Save and this will retain more information than a normal MAJ. 

 

You can upload that here to the forum, or you can upload it to the link I will PM you if you would like to keep the file private. 

Attached is the file that you requested... Thank you for your help.

Hello @bdean123456 ,

 

I'm not seeing an attachment. If the post was sent as  a reply email, the attachment may have been removed. You can upload the file directly int he forum, or you can upload it here: Upload a File 

Sorry, the file must have been removed... I have now posted it to the link you provided.

No worries, it happens. I see the ESJ file in there now! I'll take a look and see what we can find, and if I get the same behavior now that we are working with the same items. 

Hello @bdean123456 ,

 

I was able to finish reviewing the file with a colleague, and I think we may have found some things that can help. It looks like a few of your specifications are having issues due to missing items:

There could be something in the jobs that is bringing in this info to the specifications. Can you check through the specifications, fix them up so no red error text is showing, and see if the issue is resolved? 

Unfortunately this did not resolve the problem. We have been working on the database and have cleaned it up. There are no longer any unresolved line items and we still have this anomaly. I was wondering if maybe it was that we are trying to use a network style database with user level access on a single-user type installation of Fabrication... maybe that is messing with it?
Thanks,
Ben

That may be part of the problem. Do other databases show the same issue, for example if you use the default imperial database, does it add a bunch of connectors as well after saving and re-opening a drawing? 

No, they don’t, but at the same time, on single user databases we are not able to add user level access control. This is a necessity so that we don’t have different users making changes to the database and changing things that they should not. So I guess that may be the resolution to this problem, but now we have a different problem of user access control.

Hello @bdean123456 ,

 

For the user profiles, do you have them set up to duplicate the database? It could be that the database has been duplicated for each profile, and is attempting to save the connectors into the different user profile database. 

 

Additionally, are you able to provide a new ESJ for us to look at, where these services have been fixed up so we can check for other areas that look problematic? 

 

(As a side note, please disregard any notification about an accepted solution, I may have mis-clicked, this is still being looked into)