Hi Barry, if I may ask a silly question, why don't you name the transitions all the same? That way the user only sees one option, when in reality there are several, and the conditions that you have set up, take care of which transition path the file takes.
To give you a very simple example that I implemented for a customer.
1. Customer wanted to release 2D SolidWorks drawings, and 3D CAD models (parts and assemblies) down different release paths.
2. I created two transitions, both named "Release"
3. I then setup conditions in each transition based on the file type, something like: "filepath = %.slddrw"
4. Then when the user selects a bunch of files to release, they only see one option.
I agree that this again is a workaround and doesn't fix the problem indicated in your SPR, but I would guess that when workflows and conditions were implemented, Solidworks thought that having permissions or not to a particular transition would be enough to affect the entries in the RMB menu.
Also, what was the workaround you mentioned in your post, I'm curious
thank you for your response. Your suggestion is something I am aware of and appreciate you confirming this for me.
In my particular case, it is the desire of my company to configure epdm such that permissions are "program specific"....in other words, each program is likely to have a different set of desired approvers.
To accomplish this, I create a transition for each program and set the "conditions" for each transition so that only files residing in a specific folder will be eligible for the specific transition. For that transition, I then give "permit" rights to only those employees who are authorized to approve for that specific program.
Giving all transitions the same name is fine and will be good for the users, but for the person who is continuing to create new transitions for each new program (or making changes to an existing transition such as adding another eligible user as an approver) it will become very difficult to keep the workflow from getting very cluttered and confusing to understand and edit.
It was my hope that I could give each transition a unique name so that the person editing the workflow would have an ability to identify which transition mapped to which program. furthermore, I assumed that epdm would not offer to the user a transition option (via right click) that is "not meeting the right conditions".
thanks again for your comments
The answer to this question for me was that the file had been "Released" via EPDM.
As the system is set up at my current contract location, once "Released", you must "Change State --> Rework to Engineering" any part or assembly file has to needs updating, no matter how minor. "Change State --> Minor Change, No Rev" is reserved for small drawing (text, balloon, notes, etc) changes.
And yes, "Rework to Engineering" is followed by "Submit for Review", after the changes are made. Then "Release" again, changing the Rev, even if it was not an actual part or assembly [physical] change. For instance, if you need to update something in the custom properties so it shows up correctly in a titleblock or BOM.
I believe these "states" and other release conditions can be customized by individual EPDM customers, but out of the box, I think it is indeed this complicated and cumbersome.
The visibility of a transition is solely controlled by the 'Permit' permission of the transition. The list of files to be processed isn't determined until the transition process has started, so SOLIDWORKS doesn't know in advance if the conditions of the transition are met.
This is not the case for me. I am testing user permissions in my EPDM environment and my test user is not in any group that has "Permit" checked for a certain transition, yet the transition appears as an option in the RMB change state menu. I can select it and the change state prompt window opens with the warning that "conditions have not been met." I would prefer if the user did not have the option to see or select this transition at all.
Does anyone have any insight as to how to fix this?