In our Classic application we have a customization in Job Entry that allows a user to go directly to an assembly in the tree by entering the Assembly Sequence.
I would like to recreate this in Kinetic using Application Studio. I’m tracing using Dev Tools, Console Log, etc, but I can’t crack it. Has anyone done this successfully?
I found this post from July 2024. Looks like @TonyJagusch was making some progress but got no responses to his questions.
Thanks Nate,
The trouble with that control is that it only shows you the assemblies that are already visible in the tree.
What I want to do is input an assembly sequence that is buried x levels deep, and I’m not sure exactly where. That’s what the classic customization was able to provide.
I see… I don’t have a solution in that case. However, in your research take a look at Job Entry > Activity > Assembly Activity > Look at the asm seq drop down there. It does show every nested sub asm. Maybe you can tap into the code used to make that combo box? Good luck!
The ability to right-click in the Job Tree and “Find Assembly Part” is available.
Can we expand this functionality with additional “Find” options?
Find Assy Number
We often know the Assy No. But not the full parentage. So we have to dig through multi-level assemblies in hopes of finding it. It could be many layers deep, and not numerically sequential depending on when they are added to the job Bill.
Find Material Part
We often have questions about a specific material on a job, but don’t know which assembly it is under.
Understood you could have the same material part in multiple places, but this is also the case with Assy Part Numbers.
Been out there since April of 2024… so… not holding my breath.
What was shown on the post was a working customization for this purpose. My question is why did I need to do it twice for it to work instead of once. I am unsure if it has been fixed since I have not touched the customization since. We sometimes had 7 BOM levels and over a thousand ASMs so this customization was necessary. I would have to go back to the layer to figure out all the working parts to go over and explain what I did.
