Automatic Revisions and Resets in EPDM

Hi all

We want to have a double overhaul management of our mechanical parts. That is to say a major index management (increment +1 (01, 02...) during a large impacting change) and a minor index management (increment +1 (A, B...) during small non-impacting changes).

I managed to set up this flow. However, we are looking for the minor revision to be reset when a major change occurs.

To make me better understood, an example:

I have a "bras_01 support" part, I make a major modification to it, it becomes "bras_02 support", I make a minor modification, it goes to "bras_02_A support" I make a minor modification again, it becomes "bras_02_B support" and then, if I make a major modification, it becomes "bras_03_B support" while we want it to become "bras_03" to go back to A if we make a minor change.

I hope I have been clear enough:)

Thank you in advance for your answers!

Audrey.

 

 

Hello

Could you send us your code (if you do this with a macro), thank you.

Dimitri

2 Likes

Hello

I do this thanks to the EPDM "administration" tool and therefore thanks to a workflow...

Hello

In the major change transition of your workflow you need to reset your minor revision to 1 in the revision number tab, see "Revision number tab" on the following link: http://help.solidworks.com/2012/french/EnterprisePDM/Admin/IDD_TRANS_PROP.htm?id=34fd79bfa8064872b7cffadbe5f40044#Pg0&ProductType=&ProductName= and the attached image.

Kind regards


capture.png

Hello

Your "minor revision" is the Version in EPDM? Or do you really have a double level of revision?

1 Like

DBZ, if the question is for me, I have 2 levels of revision:

- Minor revision: file modification without impact on manufacturing

- Major Overhaul: Manufacturing Impact Change 

Of course, the file version is added to this each time you check in the vault.

So it works similar to that of audrey.robineau

Kind regards

1 Like

Indeed d.roger I must be able to reach the goal by doing as you say, the problem is that I can't get in my major modification transition the second "minor" line like you... I can't understand where this comes from, do you have any idea?

Have you created your minor revision as described here: http://help.solidworks.com/2012/french/EnterprisePDM/Admin/t_revision_numbers_creating.htm?id=c119bb9fb258430e9791f835f1ff810e#Pg0&ProductType=&ProductName=

In the EPDM administration tree you should have something like on the attached image.

Kind regards


capture-1.png

Yes I did create my two revisions (major and minor) as mentioned and I have the same tree structure as on your image

It looks like:

"If your revision number isn't on the list, it means that by the time you created it, you probably kept the workflow open. Exit and open the workflow again."

As indicated on the page:

http://help.solidworks.com/2012/french/EnterprisePDM/Admin/t_revision_numbers_assigning_to_workflow_states.htm?id=2cb6b8ad0e904e0e8d6b69f5f53aab42#Pg0&ProductType=&ProductName=

Apart from that, I don't really see where it can come from.

Kind regards

I can see it in my list. Indeed I created this minor revision open flow, I tried as you say to close everything and re-open, but the same, at no time can I get the two lines...

I was able to manage otherwise but I find the same problem if I want to go back to an earlier clue, whether it is major or minor.

I'll see my trainer again on October 4th, if there's no solution in the meantime, I'll see with him:)

Thank you for your research in any case!

Hello

Out of curiosity I wanted to try, and I also can't add a second revision in my WorkFlow like on d.roger's image (image).

yet several revision numbers exist in my PDM. I can choose between one or the other, but not two.

 

 

Hello

The following example shows how to do this: http://help.solidworks.com/2012/french/EnterprisePDM/Admin/t_revision_numbers_creating_with_major_minor_counters.htm?id=5b6eb36ac4aa4f55a77e5176b44b9e4a#Pg0&ProductType=&ProductName=

It requires 2 components of revision number and 1 revision number.

Kind regards

1 Like

Indeed d.roger, the method stated works but not as desired so I made two validation request links, a major circuit and a minor circuit.

In any case, your post answers my question well and it works! Thank you for your research to all:)