Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.

First time visiting? Here are some places to start:
  1. Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
  2. Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
  3. Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
  4. Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.

If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.

How to ignore configuration items in Configured Assembly Properties?

jim_wilson436jim_wilson436 Member Posts: 14
I am trying to configure part numbers on some assemblies. Frequently, some of the configured values for the assembly are irrelevant to the part number.

As an example, on one assembly, a configured orientation angle sets the relative positions of movable elements. The angle doesn't affect the assembly part number, which solely depends on size. Say the assembly comes in three different sizes. I should only need three entries in the table, one for each size.

However, apparently I must list all three sizes for every possible orientation value. Otherwise, any unlisted angle will make onshape set the part number to a default value, instead of the correct part number based only on size. This gets ridiculous quickly when an irrelevant configuration value is a real number.

Isn't there some way to remove or identify certain columns to be ignored in the Configured Assembly Properties table? Or is there some other workaround?

Best Answer

  • Eleanor_CoffinEleanor_Coffin Member Posts: 43 PRO
    Answer ✓
    I filed a request about this a few months ago and this was what @TimRice said:
    Currently we do not support Configured properties wildcards so each variation of the configured part must be explicitly created in the Configured properties table. I added you to the improvement request to address this.

Answers

  • SethFSethF Member Posts: 65 PRO
    It's really helpful for communicating and issue and often a solution to that issue if you post a link to a public document. That way everyone can get on the same page much more easily. (See this page)
  • jim_wilson436jim_wilson436 Member Posts: 14
    Ok. Thanks for responding. Here is a link to a simplified example.

    And a picture:



    I've made Name match Part Number so the result is instantly obvious. Just play with the configuration parameters and watch how the name changes, or doesn't. In this case, I need the name (and PN) to always match the size value. That's it. Nothing else should matter.
  • Eleanor_CoffinEleanor_Coffin Member Posts: 43 PRO
    Answer ✓
    I filed a request about this a few months ago and this was what @TimRice said:
    Currently we do not support Configured properties wildcards so each variation of the configured part must be explicitly created in the Configured properties table. I added you to the improvement request to address this.
  • jim_wilson436jim_wilson436 Member Posts: 14
    Thank you, @Eleanor_Coffin.
    What a pity, though! Obviously, it is impossible to explicitly create "each variation of a configured part" if the assembly contains a configuration variable. There are infinitely many variations--it would take a long time to create them all. :smile:
    Incidentally, wildcards aren't the only approach to resolving the issue. Simply allowing the user to delete or ignore a configuration property column from the table would be a huge step forward. Enabling expressions in the assigned property field would be another great improvement.
    Cheers!


  • KITAKITA Member Posts: 2 PRO
    Thank you, @Eleanor_Coffin.
    What a pity, though! Obviously, it is impossible to explicitly create "each variation of a configured part" if the assembly contains a configuration variable. There are infinitely many variations--it would take a long time to create them all. :smile:
    Incidentally, wildcards aren't the only approach to resolving the issue. Simply allowing the user to delete or ignore a configuration property column from the table would be a huge step forward. Enabling expressions in the assigned property field would be another great improvement.
    Cheers!


    This is exactly the approach I was looking for!
Sign In or Register to comment.