I am trying to get a traceability report.
But when I click the collaps/expand BOM’s the preview does not change.
But if I Click [the show with sub assemblies ] and the PDF is generated, it will have added the column Show/Hide that reveals the ‘+’ sign that makes it possible to expand and collaps the sub assemblies.
But I cannot see it in the preview and thereby I cannot decide which sub assemblies that should show and which should not.
Preview:
@sisyfos I can see that this has changed recently… I’ll send this over to engineering and we’ll hopefully get a fix rolled into the version 4.18 rollout. I can understand how frustrating this must be, I’ll keep you updated as the fix progresses.
@sisyfos since it will be a few weeks before 4.18 is out to the cloud servers well go ahead and fix this issue in 4.17. Thank you for letting us know about this.
@sisyfos We should have a fix for this out to you in the next week. Note that the expand/collapse option doesn’t change what is shown on the final PDF. Rather it’s only for use in the preview.
@sisyfos that’s correct, currently when you Print the PDF with Sub Components it will print everything regardless of what is collapsed or expanded in the preview.
@sisyfos After review it looks like the Order Traceability never honored the preview but the Invoice Traceability does… I’ll see if we can slip something into 4.18 for you.
@sisyfos I’d recommend you use the Invoice Traceability doc when ever possible. The Order Traceability doc was copied from the Invoice example but some functions don’t work as well.
@cetecerp2
Thanks for the advise.
However I have now tested the invoice Traceabilityreport.
It seems it will not print the preview as I have set it up.
Here is my preview.
@sisyfos Thanks for letting me know… yeah it looks like some query parameters are being duplicated causing them to become an array. In that case I was able to get all three to print collapsed if I collapsed the first two manually and then left the third expanded… we’ll take a look at that and try to get a fix out for 4.18.
Just wanted to say thank you for being so responsive and taking the matter so seriously.
If you are in a dialog with engineering I would point out that a enhancement to the traceability report would be if you could move the Arrow showing the parts under a subassembly just a bit to offset it from the previous subassembly.
Like this.
You can see that the
SNC parts has only 2 arrows depicting that it is a subpart of the SNC product.
and the PCH parts has 3 arrows depicting that it is a subpart of PCH … and so on
It would be nice that it kept all the subassemblies together in the traceability report.
So all 1 arrow > parts where listed first
And then all 2 arrow >> parts second… and so on.
That would greatly improve the readabliity of the report.
Especially if you like me have tried to list all the parts in that order in the BOM’s.
I know it might be asking a lot but please consider it.
I saw that CETEC is working on this and it is a good thing.
Regarding the hierarchy, it would be very difficult for other companies if you list all level-1 parts, then all the level-2 parts, etc., if their Part Codes (PRCs) do not align with the levels. If this is the case, they wouldn’t know which component belongs to which assembly.
I agree with you about indentation per level (not just the arrows). The report might have already some kins of indentation, but it’s meaningless if the Component column is center-aligned. Usually BOM reports have Component column left-aligned, showing the indentation.
@sisyfos@cayma I don’t believe we’ll be doing any major redesign of this page. However we will consider your input when designing a new version of the page for the revamp of the Invoice module in our new technology stack.
Those who like to have the order of their parts displayed in order should take care to list the BOMS so all parts are listed first in their subassembly BOM,
and put their sub assemblies last in the BOM.
To be clear I am not saying that all parts on level 2 should be displayed together no matter which product they belong to.
Each product should of be displayed with its internal hirearcy preserved.
So in my case it should be displayed like this
FIG XQS ORANGE APPLE SE
> SNC ORANGE APPLE SE
>> CAN BODY"
>> CAN BODY
>> TLB LABEL ....
>> SLB LABEL ....
>> BLB label ...
Note* The bullets in my example should really be the “plus sign” symbol.
Maybe this is a better example (should have used AI to start with)
+ Main PART 1 Description
+ Part 1 part description
> Sub-part 1.1 Description of sub-part 1.1
> Sub-part 1.2 Description of sub-part 1.2
> Sub-part 1.3 Description of sub-part 1.3
> Sub-part 1.4 Description of sub-part 1.4
> Sub-part 1.5 Description of sub-part 1.5
> Sub-part 1.6 Description of sub-part 1.6
+ > Part 2 subassembly in part 1
>> Sub-part 2.1 Description of sub-part 2.1
>> Sub-part 2.2 Description of sub-part 2.2
>> Sub-part 2.3 Description of sub-part 2.3
+ >> Part 3 sub assembly in part 2
>>> Sub-part 3.1 Description of sub-part 3.1
>>> Sub-part 3.2 Description of sub-part 3.2
>>> Sub-part 3.3 Description of sub-part 3.3
+ >>> Part 4 Sub assembly in part 3
>>>> Sub-part 4.1 Description of sub-part 4.1
>>>> Sub-part 4.2 Description of sub-part 4.2
>>>> Sub-part 4.3 Description of sub-part 4.3
+ > Part 3 subassembly in part 1
>> Sub-part 2.1 Description of sub-part 2.1
>> Sub-part 2.2 Description of sub-part 2.2
>> Sub-part 2.3 Description of sub-part 2.3
+ Main PART 2 Description
+ Part 1 part description
> Sub-part 1.1 Description of sub-part 1.1
> Sub-part 1.2 Description of sub-part 1.2
> Sub-part 1.3 Description of sub-part 1.3
> Sub-part 1.4 Description of sub-part 1.4
> Sub-part 1.5 Description of sub-part 1.5
> Sub-part 1.6 Description of sub-part 1.6
+ > Part 2 subassembly in part 1
>> Sub-part 2.1 Description of sub-part 2.1
>> Sub-part 2.2 Description of sub-part 2.2
And so on
If I understand correctly, that’s the way CETEC always displays the BOMs. So I guess this will be fine. Hopefully that’s what CETEC is going to implement.
Cesar
P.S. I assume that the “+” signs in your example should be “-” since the BOM is expanded for each assembly.
But as you can see in my screenshots that is not the case in Cetec today.
there is a plus sign no matter if it is expanded or not.
But I could have made the example that way.
But I wanted to depict reality and did not want to bring up details as the function is much more important for me than the details here.
