![]() This makes "update to revision" harder to use. This could also help with previously reported concern: Svn 1.8 - Problem with Choosing items during checkout ( ) Grey: Item is selected and some or no children are selected Would it be possible to change the two state checkbox into a three-state check box?Ĭhecked: Item is selected and all children are selected recursively To work around this problem, I need to expand all subfolders until I reach the depth at which all lower subfolders are either selected or not selected. Snailsvn update item to revision option windows#.same with PO’s and jobs.Ĭhanging revisions keep history of the part. If activity has happened (a sales order release being shipped… for instance, we do not change it ) if the rev changes has an impact (new volume, weight or parts per package) we would close the order and create a new one. If no activity has happened on those lines, that is what we do. For sales orders, since we copy lots of info from the revision (via BPM), we delete the line and add the part again. So this new rev implicates that manual changes are needed. Table PODetail has the rev number as well as jobNum as well as OrderDtl table for example.Īfter approval of a new revision, we lookup those tables (in a BAQ query) to find any “active” records (po not closed, Jobs opened, sales orders not shipped etc… )Īnd send an email as well as popping up a message to the user. Here is what we do, it depends if the changes has an impact (new volume, weight or parts per package for instance) : If you are a high volume manufacturer, I think that using effective dates in E-10 to help you manage the cut over is a better solution. That’s just what we do, but we are in a low volume high mix business. Basically, once a revision is requested, as task gets added there, assigned to whoever the next person the process is that needs to do something, and it’s passed down the line until it’s completed and closed. Other versions of a digital scrum board are out there too. We manage these revision changes outside of Epicor using a collaboration solution called Clickup. ![]() ![]() We make the necessary adjustments and redistribute travelers/prints as needed. So when this happens, we find all of the part numbers that are on current jobs via a dashboard that unionizes is the Job Material and Job Assembly tables. Again, this is because of the nature of our business. Usually, the revision is driven because there was an error that needed to be corrected, not because of an improvement. That’s for piece part fabricated parts.įor assemblies, since we are an engineer to order company, we don’t have to get too far up the structure before those numbers become basically job specific, so the part number rule becomes a bit more relaxed. If you are using a totally different material, I would say that requires a new part number. This isn’t best practice, it’s just what we do.įirst off for revisions, our general rule for a revision is “can the new part function in place of the old part?”, and if it can’t, it turns into a new part number not a new revision. So I will give you my experience with revisions, and how they actually work in my current company. Unless this info is elsewhere in the part module? That palet having a volume of 6 sq ft and a weight of 6.8 kg which augment the weight and the volume of those 30 parts. ![]() As the way the parts ,may be packaged together (saving on volume), or that the package could have a palet holding all the parts together. Multiplying 30 by unit vol and weight is not accurate for us. If so, I can see that (in my opinion) it is missing a weight/volume of the package itself. Am I guessing right when I say the container is a package of say 30 units? We will soon going into an upgrade process by June to the latest version. I noticed that your snapshot had info about per container value… We tick UsePartRev for all our parts… Partrev table has over 30 ud fields, such as package dimensions and weight, parts per package, approved materials to produce the part (list of 5 amongst 100 ) etc… so all information that can be changed and saved as a new revision if needed. I did not interpret UseRevision to be UsePartRev… I understood Userevision to be a flag on the revision table to indicate to use THAT revision amongts all approved revisions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |