topic Re: How to add WTPart as a child to Parent part in Part Structure Browser without iterating parent p in Windchill Customization

How to add WTPart as a child to Parent part in Part Structure Browser without iterating parent part

AKC — Thu, 29 May 2025 15:33:01 GMT

I have a requirement where if I add a specific type of WTPart to existing Part in Part structure using OOTB actions "add existing"/"add new", the Parent part to which I want to add child part should not iterate. For this I have implemented listener and catch the PRE_STORE event and could found the target object which is WTPartUsageLink. From this I got both roleA and roleB objects, and then I undo check out the roleA (parent) and then created an usagelink and finally tried to save it using PersistenceHelper.manager.insert() API

Here the issue is probably in back end after PRE_STORE , there is PRE_CHECKIN event that might be calling so I am getting exception that unable to find the checked-out copy. Here there will not be any working copy because I undo check out it using WorkInHelper.. API.

My overall intension is that parent part should not iterate but need to create usagelink by adding a child part (of specific type).

Note: This I need only when I am trying to add a specific type of part which will not involve any release. I have an option in my mind of creating custom action followed by implementing custom Form Processor, however, I want to know the feasibility of using existing OOTB actions by implementing listeners.

Can anyone help me out for this? Thanks in advance

Re: How to add WTPart as a child to Parent part in Part Structure Browser without iterating parent p

TDT — Fri, 30 May 2025 08:13:36 GMT

Hi @AKC,

At first place why the parent part shouldn't iterate?

Re: How to add WTPart as a child to Parent part in Part Structure Browser without iterating parent p

AKC — Fri, 30 May 2025 09:11:15 GMT

Hi @TDT ,

The part which we would like to add in part structure is of specific type which will not be go for production release to any plant. This is just to add some information to existing parent part. So I just want to know the feasibility if we can achieve this with OOTB actions itself

Re: How to add WTPart as a child to Parent part in Part Structure Browser without iterating parent p

Fadel — Fri, 30 May 2025 10:03:55 GMT

Without iterating is against Windchill specs, he only way is to go through SQL and do an insert into WTPartUsageLink

table, but this not really supported .

Re: How to add WTPart as a child to Parent part in Part Structure Browser without iterating parent p

d_graham — Fri, 30 May 2025 17:14:29 GMT

@Fadel ,

I just wrote code using only APIs (no SQL dB insert was used) to add a Part to structure without iterating the parent part.

Here's parent part before. Note version A.1

I run code in Windchill shell.

I refresh structure page and we see

0000000034, test 1, A.1 now uses 0000000035, test 2, A.1

0000000034, test 1, A.1 was NOT iterated.

Re: How to add WTPart as a child to Parent part in Part Structure Browser without iterating parent p

AKC — Sat, 31 May 2025 06:32:57 GMT

Hi @d_graham ,

Could you please explain the process you followed to achieve this?

Re: How to add WTPart as a child to Parent part in Part Structure Browser without iterating parent p

d_graham — Sun, 01 Jun 2025 13:22:07 GMT

I did get this to work in the UI using only supported APIs. No SQL was used.

I used the Insert Existing option and added a new part without iterating the parent part.

I add the new part.

Then I refresh the page, and we the new part is in fact added to the structure of A.1. 😊

So, it is doable to add a new part to structure in the UI without iterating the parent part.

Re: How to add WTPart as a child to Parent part in Part Structure Browser without iterating parent p

Fadel — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 07:11:55 GMT

Is the part automatically checked in as A.1 , if yes this a BUG , the A.1 may be already sent to ERP with 1 usage link , and adding another usage with no iteration may create inconsistencies between PDM and ERP ,

Re: How to add WTPart as a child to Parent part in Part Structure Browser without iterating parent p

d_graham — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 09:20:47 GMT

No, it is NOT automatically checked in as A.1.

@AKC wants to add a child part to the part’s structure without iterating the part. That’s exactly what I did.

Re: How to add WTPart as a child to Parent part in Part Structure Browser without iterating parent p

Fadel — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 09:25:17 GMT

I don't really follow you , initially the part was A.1 checked in , then insert existing checks the A.1 out second screenshot .

then on the third on we have 2 usages and A.1 checked in ,I'm not sure how you got A.1 back checked in without moving to A.2 ?

Re: How to add WTPart as a child to Parent part in Part Structure Browser without iterating parent p

HelesicPetr — Tue, 03 Jun 2025 12:51:26 GMT

Hi @Fadel

He just used some API that exists and you can add the usage link without iterating the parent.

But it is a developer's know-how or trick :D. As @d_graham said. It is doable.

PetrH

Re: How to add WTPart as a child to Parent part in Part Structure Browser without iterating parent p

d_graham — Tue, 03 Jun 2025 17:17:12 GMT

@Fadel ,

@HelesicPetr is correct.

It’s a trick I developed when I first had a request to do whatever without iterating while still using supported APIs.😁

Re: How to add WTPart as a child to Parent part in Part Structure Browser without iterating parent p

anursingh — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 23:05:36 GMT

Hi @AKC,

I wanted to see if you got the help you needed.

If so, please mark the appropriate reply as the Accepted Solution. It will help other members who may have the same question.
Of course, if you have more to share on your issue, please pursue the conversation.

Thanks,
Anurag

Re: How to add WTPart as a child to Parent part in Part Structure Browser without iterating parent p

AKC — Tue, 15 Jul 2025 05:27:05 GMT

Hello @anursingh ,

Based on the insights provided by subject matter experts, it is evident that the solution I am pursuing is feasible. However, the specific approach for its implementation remains unclear at this stage.

Regards,

Krishna Chaithanya