I was reading through the configurator technical reference guide and I came across a section about the On Load event for the configurator and in that section it says that we can, “set the configuration as complete, [which causes] the application to skip pages and instead execute the On Leave event of each page….”
So… my question is, how do we “set the configuration as complete?”
Please see the attached excerpt from the 10.2.300 configurator tech ref guide on this.
Can you give us an overview of what’s going on within the parent configurator? For example, is it dropping the part in question, or are there options that are applied in the parent that then mean that the part can be standard rather than configured?
We are swapping out a subassembly in the parent configurator with another configurable part. The only reason that we have that part as configurable is becuase it will not launch the subconfigurator inside of it. So since it HAS to be configurable, we just created a dummy configurator with a blank page that the user clicks through. after they click through it, the subconfigurator launches for the part inside of it.
What about treating it like a hybrid template/super BOM? Have both subassemblies listed as materials, making sure the configurable one is pulled as an assembly, with Keep When rules in place so that only one is ever kept. That might allow the configurator to detect the configurable part within the subassembly (when kept) without having to make the subassembly configurable because the configurable part shows up directly on the BOM.
Super boms are not maintainable for our organization. Way too many keep when rules to write and keep track of. To clarify, the assembly that we are configuring is 2 levels down. It is a child of a child to the parent part which also poses a problem when rev and mom structure changes occur. All the method rules get messed up if you change assembly sequences or mtl sequences.The way we are attempting to create our configurators eliminates the need for many keep when rules and the problems of having child method rules, but in order to do it, we have to use subconfigurators and these dummy subconfigurators that I do not want to see.