I am on the test instance and I am trying to import a labor plan. I am getting a different result after the import compared to what is expected. Please let me know if this is a bug or if I am doing something incorrectly.
Actual outcome (from the test instance, https://accelovant_test.cetecerp.com/otd/revision/2998/build_process):
Missing instruction 1,2 under Operation 1. Operation 2 has a blank instruction 1.
The expected outcome comes from the fact that the input csv was generated from querying the production db. Note the place_in_line was trialed with the exact output from the query as well as trialing to increment from 1-4 for each row (the example shown above).
This is the query used to generate the above csv
select prm.build_order as location_order, pr.prcpart, ols.description as work_location, bo.name as build_operation, prmoi.instruction, prmo.place_in_line, prmoi.material_required, prmo.repetitions, prmoi.required, prmo.setup, pr.revision, bo.avg_seconds as time_estimate
from accelovant.part_revision pr
join accelovant.part_revision_map prm on prm.revision_id = pr.id
join accelovant.part_revision_map_operations prmo on prmo.part_revision_map_id = prm.id and prmo.active = 1
join accelovant.part_revision_map_operation_instructions prmoi on prmo.id = prmoi.part_revision_map_operation_id
join accelovant.build_operations bo on bo.id = prmo.operation_id
left join accelovant.ordline_status ols on ols.id = prm.location_id
where pr.prcpart = 'BOMA-0163-02' and pr.current_rev = 1
order by prm.build_order asc
Let me know if you need any other information to resolve this.
It’s a very fair question. Your ticket is #4 is the queue of the engineer. Once they have worked through the enterprise then standard tickets, yours will be bumped to the top. I would anticipate it would be looked at tomorrow, and if there is a bug, it typically takes 7-10 days to deploy the fix.
I ran everything by our engineering team, and here’s a breakdown of what’s happening:
Instruction or Material Required - The import tool requires at least one of these fields to be filled out in order to create a row. If both are blank, the line gets skipped during import. That’s likely why you’re seeing some instructions not show up as expected.
Default Instructions - When a new operation is created through the import, Cetec automatically adds a default instruction to it. That’s why you’re seeing a blank instruction under Operation 2… it’s the system inserting a default line when it builds out that new operation.
Bug Identified and Fixed - There was a bug specific to the structure and order of your data that caused some existing instructions to get overwritten with blank or “undefined” values. We’ve pushed a fix for that, so this behavior should now be resolved.
Duplicate Instruction - In the case of “CURING P-0085-02 Program 6,” the system already had a default instruction saved (“P-0085-Q2”), so when you imported the labor plan, that instruction was added twice, once automatically by Cetec and once from your file. You can either clean that up manually post-import or filter it out of your file ahead of time.
The fix should be live in your environment in the next 7–10 days. Let me know if anything still looks off or if you’d like to hop on a quick call to walk through it together.
Instruction or Material Required - The import tool requires at least one of these fields to be filled out in order to create a row. If both are blank, the line gets skipped during import. That’s likely why you’re seeing some instructions not show up as expected.
All input rows, 2-5 have an Instruction so I am not sure how they will be skipped with this condition. Also the ‘image here’ text and html does not get imported.
Duplicate Instruction - In the case of “CURING P-0085-02 Program 6,” the system already had a default instruction saved (“P-0085-Q2”), so when you imported the labor plan, that instruction was added twice, once automatically by Cetec and once from your file. You can either clean that up manually post-import or filter it out of your file ahead of time.
The output does not show ‘P-0085-02’ twice, it shows a blank line for operation 2,instruction 1 and operation 2, instruction 2 as ‘P-0085-02’ once.
With the new bug fixes, does the actual output match the expected output in my original post? Or is it possible for the fix be added to our test environment for verification?
Thanks for your detailed follow-up here. The fix hasn’t been applied to your environment, so things may still look off in the meantime.
Once the update gets pushed in, I think it’ll clear up what you’re seeing and bring the output in line with expectations. Appreciate your patience as we wrap that up, definitely recommend holding off on additional troubleshooting until you’ve had a chance to test post-fix.
Once the fix is in place on your end, go ahead and run tests. Let me know if anything still looks off or unexpected. Sounds like we’re about 7-10 days out… keep me posted once you’ve had a chance to try it.
