part number format

[C-R-Montoya]

Is it possible to use a different PN scheme ?

[cbrake]

It will probably take some code changes to make that happen as the format is currently fairly integral to how everything works. Feel free to propose something, and we can explore how it might be worked in.

[C-R-Montoya]

Sure! A Yaml file defines PN and The fields in the parts master. I can see you hardcoded this for your company, and that makes sense. I just violently disagree with your parts numbering scheme. But I think you aced the rest of this. Adding a bit of flexibility will likely insure more uptake.

I am far from a good coder. But it looks like you could replace some of the hard coded functions like in IPN.go and Partsmaster.go, bom.go. and be most of the way there. That said I know its not simple. I could try to help, I don't know go nor have i dived in fully to the code.

[cbrake]

I just violently disagree with your parts numbering scheme.

:-) I'm curious, what PN scheme do you use and why?

[STylerRD]

Having a fixed part number scheme of CCC-NNNN-VVVV also does not work for my application / work flow. I support many different projects and clients. Within a single company this would also be thought of multiple divisions or groups of engineers. Supporting a prefix would allow multiple groups that have their own prefix, that need to control their own part numbers, but not fall over or duplicate part numbers from other groups. So the part number needs to be expanded to have a prefix. GGG-CCC-NNNN-VVVV. I support the thought of changing all groups to 4 characters: GGGG-CCCC-NNNN-VVVV. Either way, this would enable larger companies to support many groups of engineers not fall over each other that work on various products and projects. In my case I am a small operator that would enable me to support multiple projects that require separate part number control.

[cbrake]

That is a neat idea to have a group prefix.

I think a start would be a way of specifying the valid PN format in the YAML config file -- perhaps a regex expression or something.

We still need to figure out how to handle versions:

#53

But, I don't see any reason why GitPLM could not support versions in the IPN, or versions in a separate column -- make it configurable.

If we start supporting all these variations, it will be critical we have good tests.

[cbrake]

I created a few more issues:

• specify IPN format in config file #56
• support version separate from IPN #57