How do you know when something is standard functionality or a bug?
I have an issue where parts are getting created by the system. However, I have no idea how, and I don’t want it to happen.
We use Engineering Workbench a lot. When a “fake part” (not in the part master) is added to a method an error is thrown:
Invalid Component Part Number… Not found in Part Master.
The system finds this unacceptable, and it will not allow the user to proceed from here. This is what we want to happen.
If the details are pulled into the Engineering Workbench from a job or quote where a “fake part” is used, the system will create that “fake part” in the part master automatically. It will create the part unbeknownst to the user, and the part will not be created with all the correct checkboxes, fields, etc…
Running system tracing, it appears like the exact same methods are called whether a “fake part” is used on the method or not. I couldn’t find a either. I don’t know where to even start on this one. I thought about a BPM that would run the method Part.PartExists on each of the EcoMaterials prior to the GetDetails method, but that seems like it would be very system intensive. A lot of our methods have a significant number of parts.
This doesn’t sound like it is intended functionality to me… I would think that the “fake part” (aka Part On The Fly, or POTF) would be tested, and then reject the “get details”.
I would submit this to Tech Support.
We just ran into another one that is apparently fixed where PartPlant records were automatically created (with inappropriate data) when certain things happened.
I personally don’t believe that there should be ANY automatic creation of PartWhse, PartPlant or Part records.
Just a heads up to anyone else who may have been curious, this is the response from Epicor:
"Reviewed this with our engineering department and this is an intended behavior
They advised to address this by creating a data directive that should warn/stop users from getting details from jobs with parts on the fly being used as materials.
But the part creation functionality while getting details from template jobs or quotes is deep rooted within the code"
I am working with a customer that has successfully run their business using parts on the fly on jobs and then pulling those methods into the engineered MOM.
Epicor just did an upgrade to fix an issue with this for pulling Parts on the fly from the quote, but in the process broke the ability to pull them from the job.
Parts on the fly is an important feature of Epicor and it should be expanded on for job shops.
Thanks Bruce. I added an alert to indicate when a POTF is created from being pulled into the method. That way at least the user knows to go to the part maintenance and setup the part correctly.
My biggest gripe was when a material was entered into the quote. This would be created without the track lots checked which is a big no no for our shop. Also, it would lead to duplicate parts in the part master if purchasing created their own part.