How to ignore configuration items in Configured Assembly Properties?

jim_wilson436
jim_wilson436 Member Posts: 23 PRO
in Community Support
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_Coffin
    Eleanor_Coffin Member Posts: 43 ✭✭✭
    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

  • SethF
    SethF Member Posts: 132 ✭✭✭
    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_wilson436
    jim_wilson436 Member Posts: 23 PRO
    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_Coffin
    Eleanor_Coffin Member Posts: 43 ✭✭✭
    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_wilson436
    jim_wilson436 Member Posts: 23 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!


  • KITA
    KITA Member Posts: 4 PRO
    jim_wilson436 said:
    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!
  • James_P_Miller
    James_P_Miller Member, csevp Posts: 40 PRO
    edited May 2025

    Any updates on this? I've created a standard library configurable assembly and everything is working great, only to run into this properties issue. It seems like it completely defeats the ease to create and functionality of the configured assembly!

    James P. Miller
    Mechanical Design | Custom Automation | Onshape CAD
    https://millerdesignservices.net

  • Lily_Dollard
    Lily_Dollard Member Posts: 2 PRO

    Bumping this thread to comment that I would also find this super helpful. Configured features can do this just fine already by only referencing one of several inputs. Seems odd for OnShape to leave configured properties in a state that requires every possible combination of inputs to be spelled out.

    That's the whole problem that having multiple configuration inputs was designed to solve!

Categories