There was a memory leak that I noticed starting with 5.1, but I never
thought that it had anything to do with Excel. Thank you, that's good to
know.
Oleg Tumarkin
Intelligent Systems Integration
(330) 335-5291
olegt@...
"Making Intelligent Use of Technology"
-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Amilbangsa [mailto:gil.amilbangsa@...]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 5:34 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] RE: Configurator Issue
Oleg,
Oops, I forgot to say that the problems with converting the files from 5.1
to 5.2 had nothing to do with the configurator. There was supposed to be
some other corrupt data somewhere and Epicor is "looking into" the database
copy sent to them. Long story, but not related with the configurator.
I certainly agree with your observation of the configurator's behaviour as
complexity increases. I've been testing multi-level configurators with
phantom assemblies, non Part Master parts and multi-stage configurators. If
you're not careful how the BOMs and rules are structured, expect unexpected
results. Or you get no results at all, as in the system hangs.
I've come across problems re assuming the system automatically recognizes
that a returned value is a string or number. It happens sometimes when
typing in an expression directly using the free-form editor and the first
time I used the ExcelLook-up feature. The syntax checker will say OK, but
the results are sometimes funny or the computer will pause for a very long
time before returning with an unexpected result or error message. I remember
tracing the problem back to the fact that a sub-expression is returning a
string and I am trying to evaluate it as a number, or vice-versa.
Just an additional question while we are on the subject, have you noticed
Excel staying open and resident in memory after running a configurator with
an ExcelLookup statement? I have this recurring problem with my computer
running out of memory/resources after running configurators with multiple
ExcelLookup statements. Epicor knows about it but has not come-up with an
answer except to run the latest MS versions and service packs.
Gil Amilbangsa
Australian Healthcare Equipment
gil.amilbangsa@...
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:28:52 -0400
From: Oleg Tumarkin <olegt@...>
Subject: RE:
Gill,
First of all, what do you mean by having to reenter detail during the
conversion to 5.2? IF you mean what I think you mean there a few companies
out there who simply could not afford to convert. I want to know all the
details about this issue.
Now to answer your question why Configurator sometimes acts in ways other
then you would expect while it is working great for you here are some
thoughts:
Usually, the problems start increasing with increased complexity, such as
multi-level BOM, or data that is used for many parallel calculations, also I
noticed that sometimes while the configurator tests out well in the
real-time mode it sometimes does not correctly do certain things like
updating fields and/or flags, especially if they are updated somewhere else
in the program already.
In the given case it was a specific bug that I ran into before that had to
do with the type of inputs that were used to generate the variables and Keep
When not being able to handle it properly, I don't know the exact cause of
the problem, but what we did to avoid it was one of the normal workarounds
when the configurator starts being goofy.
One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting
different results, but alas sometimes you have to do what you have to do.
Hope this helps,
Oleg Tumarkin
Intelligent Systems Integration
(330) 335-5291
olegt@...
"Making Intelligent Use of Technology"
-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Amilbangsa [mailto:gil.amilbangsa@...]
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 9:05 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] RE: Configurator Issue
John/Oleg/Jeff,
I've used the Keep When + Logical OR expression numerous times and came up
with correct results. So I am curious why you are having this problem.
Just to test, I set-up the following in a test part in line with John's. To
test a couple of ways to get the results, 2 materials are set-up with
different, but congruent rules:
Input: FILL-IN-1, String x(3)
Rules:
SeriesB = Substring(FILL-IN-1,Integer(1.00),Integer(1.00))
SeriesC = Substring(FILL-IN-1,Integer(2.00),Integer(1.00))
SeriesD = Substring(FILL-IN-1,Integer(3.00),Integer(1.00))
Material1- Keep When (((SeriesC + SeriesD) = "11") Or ((SeriesC + SeriesD) =
"10"))
Material2 - Keep When (((Substring(FILL-IN-1,Integer(2.00),Integer(2.00))) =
"10") Or ((Substring(FILL-IN-1,Integer(2.00),Integer(2.00))) = "11"))
Ran Test Rules withinputs 610, 611, 612, 613. Results for both rules were as
expected. So there does not appear to be a problem with the evaluation of
logical expressions in the configurator.
We tested most of our configurator stuff in 5.10.128 and below. Had a bit of
strife converting files to 5.20 and had to re-enter all the configurator
details to continue our testing. The configurator is the same, exhibits the
same behaviour, including the "buggy interface". The new check-out process
is a bit irritating at times because you have to approve, check-in and then
unapprove a revision before you can work in the configurator.
Any thoughts on why our systems appear to behave differently with regard to
handling these logical statements?
Gil Amilbangsa
Australian Healthcare Equipment
gil.amilbangsa@...
PS. Using the Calculation rule to store the result of a commonly used
expression as a variable is a very good idea. Like Jeff, I found this
simplifies building expressions a lot. If the expression is used only once,
I generally use it directly as a sub-expression.
________________________________________________________________________
Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must have
already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
(1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and
Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.>
(2) To search through old msg's goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages>
(3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/links
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/links>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
thought that it had anything to do with Excel. Thank you, that's good to
know.
Oleg Tumarkin
Intelligent Systems Integration
(330) 335-5291
olegt@...
"Making Intelligent Use of Technology"
-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Amilbangsa [mailto:gil.amilbangsa@...]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 5:34 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] RE: Configurator Issue
Oleg,
Oops, I forgot to say that the problems with converting the files from 5.1
to 5.2 had nothing to do with the configurator. There was supposed to be
some other corrupt data somewhere and Epicor is "looking into" the database
copy sent to them. Long story, but not related with the configurator.
I certainly agree with your observation of the configurator's behaviour as
complexity increases. I've been testing multi-level configurators with
phantom assemblies, non Part Master parts and multi-stage configurators. If
you're not careful how the BOMs and rules are structured, expect unexpected
results. Or you get no results at all, as in the system hangs.
I've come across problems re assuming the system automatically recognizes
that a returned value is a string or number. It happens sometimes when
typing in an expression directly using the free-form editor and the first
time I used the ExcelLook-up feature. The syntax checker will say OK, but
the results are sometimes funny or the computer will pause for a very long
time before returning with an unexpected result or error message. I remember
tracing the problem back to the fact that a sub-expression is returning a
string and I am trying to evaluate it as a number, or vice-versa.
Just an additional question while we are on the subject, have you noticed
Excel staying open and resident in memory after running a configurator with
an ExcelLookup statement? I have this recurring problem with my computer
running out of memory/resources after running configurators with multiple
ExcelLookup statements. Epicor knows about it but has not come-up with an
answer except to run the latest MS versions and service packs.
Gil Amilbangsa
Australian Healthcare Equipment
gil.amilbangsa@...
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:28:52 -0400
From: Oleg Tumarkin <olegt@...>
Subject: RE:
Gill,
First of all, what do you mean by having to reenter detail during the
conversion to 5.2? IF you mean what I think you mean there a few companies
out there who simply could not afford to convert. I want to know all the
details about this issue.
Now to answer your question why Configurator sometimes acts in ways other
then you would expect while it is working great for you here are some
thoughts:
Usually, the problems start increasing with increased complexity, such as
multi-level BOM, or data that is used for many parallel calculations, also I
noticed that sometimes while the configurator tests out well in the
real-time mode it sometimes does not correctly do certain things like
updating fields and/or flags, especially if they are updated somewhere else
in the program already.
In the given case it was a specific bug that I ran into before that had to
do with the type of inputs that were used to generate the variables and Keep
When not being able to handle it properly, I don't know the exact cause of
the problem, but what we did to avoid it was one of the normal workarounds
when the configurator starts being goofy.
One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting
different results, but alas sometimes you have to do what you have to do.
Hope this helps,
Oleg Tumarkin
Intelligent Systems Integration
(330) 335-5291
olegt@...
"Making Intelligent Use of Technology"
-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Amilbangsa [mailto:gil.amilbangsa@...]
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 9:05 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] RE: Configurator Issue
John/Oleg/Jeff,
I've used the Keep When + Logical OR expression numerous times and came up
with correct results. So I am curious why you are having this problem.
Just to test, I set-up the following in a test part in line with John's. To
test a couple of ways to get the results, 2 materials are set-up with
different, but congruent rules:
Input: FILL-IN-1, String x(3)
Rules:
SeriesB = Substring(FILL-IN-1,Integer(1.00),Integer(1.00))
SeriesC = Substring(FILL-IN-1,Integer(2.00),Integer(1.00))
SeriesD = Substring(FILL-IN-1,Integer(3.00),Integer(1.00))
Material1- Keep When (((SeriesC + SeriesD) = "11") Or ((SeriesC + SeriesD) =
"10"))
Material2 - Keep When (((Substring(FILL-IN-1,Integer(2.00),Integer(2.00))) =
"10") Or ((Substring(FILL-IN-1,Integer(2.00),Integer(2.00))) = "11"))
Ran Test Rules withinputs 610, 611, 612, 613. Results for both rules were as
expected. So there does not appear to be a problem with the evaluation of
logical expressions in the configurator.
We tested most of our configurator stuff in 5.10.128 and below. Had a bit of
strife converting files to 5.20 and had to re-enter all the configurator
details to continue our testing. The configurator is the same, exhibits the
same behaviour, including the "buggy interface". The new check-out process
is a bit irritating at times because you have to approve, check-in and then
unapprove a revision before you can work in the configurator.
Any thoughts on why our systems appear to behave differently with regard to
handling these logical statements?
Gil Amilbangsa
Australian Healthcare Equipment
gil.amilbangsa@...
PS. Using the Calculation rule to store the result of a commonly used
expression as a variable is a very good idea. Like Jeff, I found this
simplifies building expressions a lot. If the expression is used only once,
I generally use it directly as a sub-expression.
________________________________________________________________________
Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must have
already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
(1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and
Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.>
(2) To search through old msg's goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages>
(3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/links
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/links>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]