Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.
First time visiting? Here are some places to start:- Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
- Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
- Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
- 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.
opPattern IDs
jacob_kingery
Member Posts: 39 EDU
Are there individual IDs for each copy made with an opPattern? I tried
qCreatedBy(id + "opPattern_ID" + "instanceName"), but that didn't seem to work. The documentation says, "TODO: make it easy to query for them," regarding the instanceNames parameter, so is this not possible yet? 0
Best Answers
-
Yes, that doesn't work because a pattern is one operation so one id. You can try to reverse engineer the automatically generated ones, but like the TODO says, we need to make this easier.Ilya Baran \ VP, Architecture and FeatureScript \ Onshape Inc5
-
I was able to work around the issue by doing each transform separately myself instead of patterning them all at once. Once it's easier to make use of the instance names, it might be better to switch back to using opPattern().5
Answers
-
Yes, that doesn't work because a pattern is one operation so one id. You can try to reverse engineer the automatically generated ones, but like the TODO says, we need to make this easier.Ilya Baran \ VP, Architecture and FeatureScript \ Onshape Inc5
-
That would be useful when patterning a sketch because qSketchRegion() takes in an ID. I was able to get something that almost does what I want by querying for the face entities created by the operation, but this doesn't handle inner loops like qSketchRegion() can. Do you have any hints on reverse engineering the generated IDs? I poked around a bit, but didn't see anything obvious.1
-
I was able to work around the issue by doing each transform separately myself instead of patterning them all at once. Once it's easier to make use of the instance names, it might be better to switch back to using opPattern().5