Vault Ideas

lcourtoisHLP8H · ‎10-08-2024

We have two different work flows, one for standard parts that are highly controlled and one for custom parts that are usually only used once for a job then not changed again but reused of future projects. The problem we are having is that we do not want the people who are working on custom parts to have access to any standard parts that are currently in work in progress (WIP). Sometimes parts that are WIP are actually in some larger assemblies and if a user does a "get" of that larger assembly and its children, they will get the WIP version of those parts. I can deny downloading for them on WIP parts but the problem with that is that vault does not know to go back the most recent version that that user does have permission to download. What vault does is looks in the user's working folder and deletes that file (if it exists in their working folder) and tries to download the most recent version but the permissions denies the download, so then there is a missing part from the upper level assembly. There also is not a way to download a previous version manually because the most recent revision is work in progress. I could also prevent them from seeing WIP parts but Vault hides all revisions not just the work in progress revision. There needs to be a way for users to be able to download the most recent "released" version of files, not just the most recent.

jan.wagnerRB67Z · ‎11-14-2024

We currently use the Vault Revision table and have run into an issue with enforcing comments during state transitions. Specifically, we need to ensure that a comment is provided when changing the state of an item, but Vault doesn't allow us to enforce input in the comment field during state transitions. As a workaround, we considered using a file property to store the "Change Comment." However, Vault does not offer an out-of-the-box solution to clear specific properties when changing states. For example, it would be ideal to have the "Change Comment" property automatically cleared when transitioning a file from "Released" back to "Work in Progress" to avoid confusion with outdated comments. It would be incredibly helpful if Vault could support a lifecycle transition action that allows us to clear selected properties, such as the "Change Comment," upon moving between specific states. This feature would provide a cleaner workflow and help prevent mix-ups from previous comments carrying over when they no longer apply.

Anthony_Dull · ‎04-16-2024

The problem to solve is this. Eliminate the ability of users prematurely doing a copy design on a "WIP" (non-released) file. Want to force users to only be able to Copy Design on "Released" files. This would ensure that designs are not prematurely used from a library on a project. Especially, when the design is going through a revision change and the file is currently in "WIP" at a revision "B" and I want them to use the historical Revision "A" at the "Released" State. Currently, if you remove the "read" permissions on the "WIP" state it also removes the ability for user to grab the copy in the history on the "Released" version. Removing the permission of download on the state also fails when doing a Copy Design on the "Released" file in the history. Whether it is through enhanced state permissions or enhanced Copy Design controls (Only Copy Design "Released" Files) this would be a welcoming addition.

jacob_john_RPC · ‎01-20-2025

My company has different departments and individuals work on different projects at a time. To manage user permissions and groups just for email notifications is a big headache. What would be nice is on lifecycle change the user can specify a user they want to review the file they are changing state. This would free up managing a large amount of groups.

andrewiv · ‎03-06-2025

We have a purge state in our lifecycle that signals the CAD admin to remove that file from Vault when moved into that state. The problem is I would like to limit it so that nothing can go into that state if it is still used in an assembly or referenced by another model. If we had the ability to set a criteria that the where used count has to be zero then I could make sure that the users are not moving a file into this state before replacing or removing the file from all assemblies that reference it.

manikandeswar_a · ‎06-25-2024

1. We need to have options to choose users from the group instead sending the mail to the entire group. 2. In Email template, it would be great to include Folder properties, to perform State transition notifications on Folder level, when user need to control the lifecycle on folders. For reference on output file, check the image, only subject line created, and it is incomplete with state properties too.

Wenjie_wuRLCJ2 · ‎09-03-2024

Is there any way to only send specific file type notification when having life stage change, for example, I just want to send .ipt and .iam file notification, not including .ipn or .idw Maybe a file type filter would be helpful in this case?

edmater · ‎11-02-2023

A transition between two lifecycle states can be blocked by transition criteria. If the case, the user is informed by a feedback dialog screen, showing a general and cryptic message. I propose to provide the lifecycle transition criteria with self-defined text that shows up in the feedback dialog. In example below, the lifecycle transition from Work in Progress to For Review depends on Controlled By Change Order is true and Change Order state is Work. If this criteria is not met, currently you receive this feedback: This message would make more sense: Proposal assign a criteria failed message field to the lifecycle transition criteria to display in the Can't change state dialog

K0ZMA · ‎03-31-2023

Hi dear Vault Users and Autodesk dev Team, I found a security problem in the vault system. You are not able to control DWF visualisation files based on llifecycle definition of a source file. I suggest to add option in the Lifecycle Definition to allow forwarding state security into DWF visualisations. At this moment you are not able to hide DWF files as you would expect. Even though you do not provide "READ" permission to the IPT/IAM/IDW files to a group of users, they are still able to view its visualisations. Thank you for adding this option, I think it is very critical issue. Best regards, David

jan.wagnerRB67Z · ‎11-20-2024

Hello Everyone, I would like to propose the addition of a Semantic Versioning Revision Scheme as an optional feature in Autodesk Vault Professional. The current revision system in Vault is robust but follows a traditional approach that can sometimes cause confusion, especially when managing secondary and tertiary revisions. Adopting a semantic versioning-style option would offer significant clarity and flexibility for engineering document control. Current behaviour: Numbering format with initial 0. Primary Revision Automatically increases when moving a document from Released back to Work in Progress (WIP). Example: Revision 0 → 1. Secondary Revision: Increases during intermediate transitions, such as (WIP →) Awaiting Approval → WIP. Example: Revision 0 → 0.0 Tertiary Revision: Used for minor fixes (e.g., spelling corrections) via a Quick Change → Released lifecycle state. Example: Revision 0 → 0.0.0 What is Semantic Versioning? Semantic Versioning (commonly used in software development) follows the format: Major.Minor.Patch Major (Primary): Indicates a significant change, like a new product release or a major design overhaul. Minor (Secondary): Represents incremental updates, such as adding new features or small improvements. Patch (Tertiary): Used for minor fixes, like correcting spelling mistakes, adjusting dimensions, or updating metadata. Example: Revision 0.0.0 → 0.0.1 (Patch) Revision 0.0.0 → 0.1.0 (Minor) Revision 0.0.0 → 1.0.0 (Major) This format ensures clarity and traceability across all levels of document changes, as all revision levels are explicitly displayed. Why Vault Needs Semantic Versioning Improved Transparency: Vault currently hides secondary and tertiary revisions unless they are incremented, which can make the revision history ambiguous. Semantic versioning ensures that all revision levels are always visible (e.g., starting at 0.0.0), eliminating guesswork. Enhanced Control for Engineering Workflows: Engineering documents often undergo multiple types of changes: Major revisions for released products. Minor updates for iterative improvements. Patch-level fixes for quick corrections. A semantic versioning option would allow teams to better categorize and communicate these changes. Standardization Across Industries: Many industries are adopting semantic versioning principles to ensure consistency and interoperability across platforms. Implementing this scheme in Vault would align Autodesk with modern best practices. Proposed Implementation in Vault Optional Revision Scheme: Add a semantic versioning scheme as an option alongside the existing revision schemes. Users could choose between traditional revisions (e.g., 0, 1, 2) and semantic versioning (e.g., 0.0.0, 0.0.1). Automatic Increment Rules: Link revision increments to lifecycle transitions: Major: Released → WIP Minor: Awaiting Approval → WIP Patch: Quick Change (of Drawings) Customizable Display Settings: Allow users to display each revision level individually as the customer does not necessarily need to know about quick changes for example. Example Workflow in Vault Using Semantic Versioning Initial Release: Revision starts at 0.0.0 upon file creation. Major Change: A new release with breaking changes transitions from 0.1.1 → 1.0.0 Minor Improvements: A small design update transitions from 0.0.0 → 0.1.0 Quick Fix: A spelling mistake correction transitions from 0.1.0 → 0.1.1. Benefits for Vault Users Increased clarity in revision histories. Enhanced alignment with modern document and software management standards. Greater flexibility for categorizing and communicating changes. I believe implementing semantic versioning as an optional revision scheme would be a game-changer for Vault Professional. It would simplify workflows, improve transparency, and provide a modern approach to revision control. If you support this idea, please upvote and share your thoughts in the comments. Together, we can make Vault even better! @ihayesjr

allow download and view for only "released" life cycle states

Lifecycle Action: Clear property e.g. for Change Comment

Control if users can Copy Design Non-Released files.

Specify User to Review/Approve file on lifecycle change

Use where used count as a transition criteria

Lifecycle state transition email notification Enhancements

Filter for lifecycle change notification

'criteria failed message' to lifecycle transition to display custom restriction message

Controling of DWF visualisations

Add Semantic Versioning Option for Engineering Document Revisions in Vault Professional

Forums Links