Configuration column/options disappear after switching to released Rev of part

S1mon

I've sent this to Support, so hopefully they will be able to solve this, but I thought I would ask here as well in case anyone has some additional wisdom or comments...

To simplify the problem, I have a part which is configured in its own part studio with and without some mounting holes for a disc brake. Each config has its own part number and they were both part of a release ("Motor Cover, M2" and "Motor Cover, Brake Side, M2"). 

I have a wheel assembly which has three configs, each with its own part number, and some changes in the assembly based on the configs. One column selects the config of the Motor Cover. This is all working fine until I try to set all the parts to versions.

As soon as I use "Change to version" on the Motor Cover in the wheel assembly, the config column for the Motor Cover goes away. If I try to reconfigure the part in the assembly, the only thing I can configure is suppression, not the configuration of the part itself.

Is this expected behavior? Is there some other way to do this to enable what I want?

S1mon

Apparently this is expected behavior. 🤯

Configued things are not released.  When you do a release, the configuration is no longer able to be selected.  If there are two, you would need to replace the part as the part number is different.  Now if you were using a version (the same version) this would be possible.  When you pick a revision, that is locked to a part number.  We understand this might be confusing and are looking at merging them so this behavior goes away so if you change the config you would just change the part number.
  from @lougallo

Now I'm finding some relevant threads:
https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/13530/released-configured-part-not-configurable

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/12603/release-configuration-option-inside-of-assemblies

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/12434/revisions-configurations-inside-of-assemblies

I kinda get it, but there's clearly a huge tension between configuration management and release management. We've spent a lot of time building up our CAD Assemblies to configure various color ways and other options. We're just now getting to the point where we have proper releases in our assemblies, but this limitation seems like it will make us do a lot of extra work or just avoid using release management above the part level. I can't see us going in to multiple layers of assemblies and getting rid of config columns and then using replace and suppress to rebuild the assemblies. That would take weeks of work.

David_YL_Nguyen

Hey @S1mon,

Great timing as I had just worked on this request recently. I hope I can give you a workable solution to your problem. 

The workaround that I would currently suggest is:
- Change/update your linked part/assembly with a selective update to the "Version of your Release"
- Do NOT change to a revision
- Live with the the blue circle or three dots; no pretty triangle for now but you can still see that you have a released part in your assembly
- You will see that you have the configuration options of the part studio/assembly and not just the suppression option a released part/assembly has 












I think this is currently a workaround to what you need so would be great if you could submit a customer support ticket for your request.
In short this is what would be needed:

User needs to Change configuration on released parts.

Workflow:
1. Release two configurations of the same part in a part studio
2. Insert one released configuration of the part into an assembly
3. Configure assembly to switch between released configurations of the part

Let me know what you think about this and if this helps with your problem.

Thanks,

David

S1mon

Thanks @David_YL_Nguyen

So far that seems to be working. As you say, it's a work around and it does look a bit weird with the update icon, but it avoids wasting a lot of work.

This ticket is already in, let me know if you need me to make a new one, or expand on it.

David_YL_Nguyen

Thanks @S1mon for submitting that ticket. Cheers