Numbering Scheme to not skip number if Cancel used

[brendan.henderson]

For people who use a structured file system the inevitable gaps that eventuate when using Vault Numbering Schemes are a real pain. Here is a thread discussing it. Surely it can't be that hard for the Vault Developers to change this function? Vault can assign numbers but nothing should be done (numbers allocated) until Save is hit. This change in action would eliminate the gaps and make our lives better.

[Anonymous]

I have been asking for this for years?

Like you wrote, how hard can i be? to actually first take the number when it is used. like it is now it results i holes in the numbering system.

[gavbath]

Good idea. What should happen though, if an entity is deleted. Should that number be reused next time the assignment occurs, or should that leave a gap?

[brendan.henderson]

I would not expect a deleted file/entity number to be restored into the numbering scheme. Having the database/function to remember deleted files may be asking to much of what I think is a simplistic bit of code.

[ckirkCRESTLINE]

Currently if you attempt to create a new part number in Vault or Inventor using a sequential scheme, the internal count for the part number increases, regardless of whether or not the part number is actually created. This means there can be large gaps between actually filled part numbers unless an external method is used to actually track the used numbers.

It would be useful if Vault kept track of the numbers actually filled in a sequential sequence, and only iterated once they were filled. We have been keeping track of the numbers by using an Excel spreadsheet, and it gets very old very quickly to be unable to simply use the sequential numbering sequence if we don't want gaps in our part numbers. At this point, if we don't want gaps in our part numbers, we cannot even use the numbering style, so why even have it at all.

Thanks.

[ckirkCRESTLINE]

Here is an example of the issue I am referring to. You can see that the part number skips by almost almost 2000 due to the way Vault keeps track of numbers generated.

If it were to check the last part number in the vault once the confirm button for renaming parts, it would be much more useful. As it is now, you manually have to track and enter each and every line if you don't want this to occur.