Invalid component deletion warning

[RogerInHawaii]

I created a component just to test out something. When I was done with the test I went to delete it, and got this warning:

Umm, no. The component is NOT referenced by other features. In creating the sketch for the test component I did indeed make use of a User Parameter that is also used by other components but that is the only relationship between this test component and the rest of the project. I also added a new User Paremeter that's referenced in this component, but not referenced anywhere else. There is nothing elsewhere in the project that makes any reference to this component, either in its sketches, features, or User Parameters.

So why does it report that it is refenced by other features in the timeline?

[jeff_strater]

any reference is swept up in that warning.  It doesn't have to be an actual timeline feature.  It can include some references that are not visible to the end user.  It is meant to be a bit conservative, as well.  Also, this is just a courtesy warning.  It can be completely ignored by clicking Delete.  If you know that nothing depends on this, then just use Delete, and everything should be fine.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@jeff_strater wrote:

It can include some references that are not visible to the end user.  

---

And that is the real problem here!

If there is a warning then it should at the very least provide a pointer as to what is being referenced. The only way to find that out today is to move forward with deleting and then see if/what turns yellow, perhaps even only after running a compute all.

[RogerInHawaii]

I fully agree. I think I had posted a suggestion a long, long time ago that any warning about references shoudl provide some means ofaccessing those refernces, maybe a list which, when anitem is clicked on it will take you directly to the reference, or maybe a way that items would be highlighted in the browser.

But doing the Delete and then scanning through everything by hand to find the yellow highlights in the timeline? That's not a resonable applroach. And how can you possibly find the references that "aren't visible in the timeline"?

In my particular situation there was absolutely no reference to anything in the timeline. It referenced a User Parameter but that User Parameter was ONLY referenced from the Component that was being deleted. That should not generate a warning. The check for references when attempting a delete needs to be more intelligent and should only resulting a warning when there is a genuine refernce that actually breaks something.

[jeff_strater]

"it should at the very least provide a pointer as to what is being referenced"  Yeah, sure, I don't disagree.  It should do that.  It doesn't do that today.  And to implement such a system is not a small task.  I see at least a dozen unique things per week that are in this same general category of being insufficient, or having been reported 4 years ago, or is making workflows inefficient, or requires too many clicks, or "should at the very least" do XYZ.  We don't have the time or resources to do them all, that is just an inconvenient fact.  We have to make tradeoffs. 

I distinctly remember the initial discussion on this particular warning.  We had 3 choices:  1) no warning, just delete dependencies that have to be deleted  2) do the full implementation, have a nice UI that shows exactly what will get deleted, with cross-highlighting, etc, or 3) offer a general warning (today's behavior).  We did not have the time at the time to do 2).  We still don't have the time to do 2).  It seemed that 3) was better than 1).    We did not have choice 4) Block Delete totally in these cases.  We had to implement some kind of delete behavior, so, that's where we ended up.  I understand that you don't like it - I don't either.  But, we are not immune from the laws of physics.  There are only 24 hours in a day.

[TrippyLighting]

@jeff_strater at the time that decision was good and perhaps it still is.

As a user, even as a fairly involved Autodesk Expert Elite, I have no insight what things are re-evaluated on a regular basis and I don't mean to indicate that those decisions are not re-evaluated on a regular basis.

If my tone was, please accept my apology. But I do want to make sure that I raise my hand if there is a topic that I believe needs attention. In isolation, the lack of specificity of this particular warning is not all that  big of a deal, however, it  is really only a small subset of a broader issue which is the lack of tools to manage complexity.

[jeff_strater]

Not a problem, @TrippyLighting  - I did not interpret your comments as a problem, I was really just trying to present some of the backstory, and a glimpse of some of what we have to wrestle with.  I realize that this came off as defensive, so likewise, I apologize for that.  I do agree with the sentiment here, but I get frustrated that we can't deal with as many of these issues as I wish we could.  Some days I am better at not letting that get to me than others.