dannypitt's Profile
Agile Angel



Title Sr Oracle Agile PLM Analyst
Company Natures Sunshine Products
Agile Version 9.3.2
  • Agile Angel Asked on November 28, 2017 in Engineering Collaboration.

    You could change the  ‘Allow Escalation Designation Approval’  property to “After Escalation” (instead of “Always”). 

    That way – as long as the escalation user approves the change BEFORE the escalation period has been reached – the check box would only be selected for their own account.

    If the escalation user waits until AFTER the escalation period – you’ll have the same issue, but hopefully that isn’t a regular occurrence.

    • 2 answers
    • 0 votes
  • Is this happening in all browsers?  There are known issues with IE 11 – especially when the user has set the browser to remember their password.
    Might want to try using Chrome or Firefox just to confirm whether or not this is the issue.

    • 3 answers
    • 0 votes
  • The ‘Signoff User Dual Identification Type’ preference (Java Client > Admin > Server Settings > Preferences) needs to be set.  It is set to “N/A” by default which disables dual identification.  This preference determines what additional identifier will be required (User ID or Login Password) if/when the ‘Dual Identification Required’ property is set to Yes on a particular workflow status.

    If set to “User ID” – the ‘Display User ID’ Preference should be set to “NO”
    If set to “Login Password” – Every User’s ‘Use Login Password for Approval’ property MUST be set to “NO”.

    • 3 answers
    • 0 votes
  • You can add the attachment’s Smart URL to the EBS record as a URL attachment.
    To make sure the Smart URL directs you to the latest released version of the attachment – just delete the Rev and change number portion from the generated URL.

    Also depending on your Smart Rule settings – you may want to remove the File Folder portion of the URL as well.  It just depends whether the new rev uses the same file folder or not.

    • 1 answers
    • 0 votes
  • I personally think that this forum being very specific to Agile PLM questions/solutions is what makes it great.  

    IF MyAgilePLM were to open up to other PLM applications – I would hope that they would be clearly separated into different areas on the website rather than being lumped together in the same spot (see Oracle Support).  The more complicated it gets to find what you are actually looking for – the less likely people are to use it.  This is especially the case for the slightly less tech-savvy users that are just trying to find quick assistance, I would think.

    Obviously just my opinion, but I even start to cringe a bit when I see things like job postings here that make me worry that this is going to slowly start turning the way of other forums that are no longer very useful for getting quick collaborative assistance.

    • 5 answers
    • 1 votes
  • Agile Angel Asked on September 1, 2017 in Product Collaboration.

    You can accomplish this by enabling the appropriate BOM “read-through” fields that you want to use in your search criteria.

    For example – lets say I want to find parent items that contain children with a Secondary UOM of “EA”.
    – For this scenario ‘Secondary UOM’ is a Part Page Two attribute (Page Two.List01).

     A Where-Used search would be sufficient to return all parent item types, but if I only want specific item types returned – I need to make the ‘Secondary UOM’ field visible on the BOM tab.
    Admin -> Data Settings -> Classes -> Parts -> User Interface Tabs -> *locate and enable “Item List01” (this can be renamed, but use caution as it may be something different for Documents)

    Once “Secondary UOM” (or Item List01) is available on the BOM tab – I can use it in my advanced search criteria:

    Items – Parts – Object Search
    Subclass – In – [whichever subclass(es) you want returned] – AND
    (BOM) Item List01 – In – [parts]EA

    I hope that all makes sense.

    • 1 answers
    • 0 votes
  • There are a few different options for this, but probably the easiest would be to set a User Group (containing user A and user B) as the approver and then set the ‘Group Signoff Expansion’ property (withing the status criteria) to “Any”.  This makes it so the workflow routing is sent to all members of the group, but only one member of that group is required to approve/reject the change. 
    (this works for named users & user groups as well as those based on Job Functions when assigned through the functional team approval matrix.)

    If that doesn’t work for you – you might want to use the “Transfer Authority” functionality.

    • 1 answers
    • 0 votes
  • Similar to Matt’s example above – We have “Access Control” fields (P2 MultiList attributes which use the ‘User Groups’ list) that can be enabled for any type of object that may require access restrictions.  

    • Criteria 1 – “Parts with No Access Restriction” (Parts Page Two.Access Control is Null)
    • Criteria 2 – “Parts for my Group” (Parts Page Two.Access Control Contains $USERGROUP)

    These criteria are used for different Discovery Privileges:

    • Discovery Priv 1 (Uses Criteria 1) – “Discover Parts No Access Restriction”
      • This allows the user to find unrestricted parts
    • Discovery Priv 2 (Uses Criteria 2) –  “Discover Parts For My Group”
      • This allows the logged in user to find restricted parts IF he/she is a member of the user group populated in the “Access Control” field.
    • 5 answers
    • 0 votes
  • Yes.  One of the most impressive things about the Agile architecture is how granular you can get with user access and restrictions.  Through reusable criteria, privilege masks, and roles – you can really make things as open or as restricted as you want.

    For your example of access to File Attachments – there are “Discovery” privileges that determine what types of objects users can even find in the first place, “Read” privileges to determine the specific attachment related fields that the users can see on those objects, “GetFile” privileges to specify what kinds of files users are able to download, “Modify” privileges, etc… All of these can be customized to any level of granularity you can think of and there isn’t any limit to the number of specific privilege masks you can create.

    This is all very high level of course as it is probably a bit too complex to get into all the ins and outs of the security model here, but the point is that the security in Agile is just about as flexible as you could hope for in any system.

    • 5 answers
    • 0 votes
  • Agile Angel Asked on August 2, 2017 in AutoVue.

    Chrome dropped NPAPI support with version 45 back in 2015 which caused AutoVue to be incompatible with Chrome.  The only solution/workaround  is to use a different supported browser like Firefox.

    This answer accepted by sukasi24. on January 10, 2018 Earned 15 points.

    • 2 answers
    • 0 votes