Would anyone have a better functional definition for the DMT Part template field “Revision”?
I cannot find it in the UI to see if there is a better definition or some additional contextualization. I also looked for it in the Help system entry details but couldn’t find a reference to it.
Its datatype is Boolean and this is the definition in the template builder:
My assumption is it is an on/off switch for revisions to be enabled on Part at all.
I had previously thought that that enabling was from the tracking enabler “TrackInventoryByRevision”.
I don’t have much of opportunity to perform testing to prove this out and hoped someone knew off hand.
Not to be super critical of the authoring process within the data dictionary, and related outputs, but I was taught as a kid that using the term your were defining in the definition was to be avoided - a non-answer. I greatly appreciate the data dictionary, the DMT template builder and other help systems, except … you know, when the information … isn’t.
Revision = version. We have different ones for manufactured items depending upon either the workcenter/press or possibly the raw material being used in the finished goods part.
Yikes I see what you mean there is a field listed in the DMT part template called “Revision” that is a boolean field. Clearly this is not the “UsePartRev” field as that is named just that. Also the actual Part Revision is controlled by the PartRev table.
I just tried to do a BAQ on the Part table and there is no field named “Revision”.
I do not use the “Revision” field in my Part import DMT files, I do a secondary DMT import file to import the Part’s Revision and Revision information.
i.e. Version of the Part?
Wouldn’t you that be an alt Part or substitute? Or Alt Method? Is this a new feature? Gotta admit I am a bit rusty on my Kinetic features and tables evolution’s.
I was curious so I created two parts with the only difference being this field value. It had no effect. The database records are exactly the same (except PartNum of course)
It does exist in the Part dataset but doesn’t exist as a column in the Part database table.
A few possibilities:
A legacy field that is no longer used and never removed from the dataset.
Something that was in development as ‘Revision’ but later renamed and left accidentally?
Maybe related to PLM integration. It’s next to a couple other PLM boolean flags in the dataset.
To clarify…I said “revision=version” to illustrate what it meant in Kinetic…guess I should have explained better. The revision is the version/configuration of a manufactured item. Example below…we have two on this part because it runs three-wide on one press and four-wide on the other.
Thanks for the experiment. I cannot easily do so atm.
I agree with your assessment on the usual suspects for its presence and the vagueness is just classic. We all preach about being good developers and keeping our documentation tight, but there are times - when the release is due, and the thorough notation goes right out the window.
It also might be intentional! They may be baiting us into conjecture, or traces of a stealth project etc. We know the Epicor development teams are a crafty lot! Always a few steps ahead… devious, just devious.
Interesting find. I wonder how far back it goes. Maybe it has always been there and never implemented? Or maybe a legacy field from an old version. They usually tell you that. (I think there’s an old lock PO setting on the PO header that got moved to the releases, etc.)
Like the Operation table (or maybe resource group) has a TAKT time field and a prior GM here was excited about that but it turns out it does nothing as it was never implemented.
