Cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Executing a Journal from Checkmate, bad practice?

Pioneer
Pioneer

I wanted to get some opinions on this. Does anyone see a reason why its bad practice to execute a journal from checkmate? We have checkmate set to save the part on a successful check. I am considering implementing info only check that calls a journal that auto set the view to our main default, fits, and sets an ISO.

What do yall think?

4 REPLIES 4

Re: Executing a Journal from Checkmate, bad practice?

Siemens Valued Contributor Siemens Valued Contributor
Siemens Valued Contributor

First note is that technical wise, there is nothing to stop your practice from wrapping a checker and insider checker function to run a journal. 

 

But from the Check-Mate as a piece part validation tool, the checker should be a quality criteria either to validate the part data or to report the information. It is bad practice to try to 'modify' the part within the "do_check". 

 

From what you have described "a journal that auto set the view to our main default, fits, and sets an ISO." - this definitely has modified the part file and has defeated the purpose of a Check-Mate checker. 

 

 

Re: Executing a Journal from Checkmate, bad practice?

Pioneer
Pioneer

So I was kinda of weighing that myself. We do modify the model through the do_heal functionality though. But this would be an automatice do everytime change.

 

Do you have a suggestion on what might be a better practice? I suppose I could write a check to see if the model is fit and on the right view and then let the user fix it themselves or use the do_heal. But is seems kinda overkill for a simple change.

Re: Executing a Journal from Checkmate, bad practice?

Siemens Valued Contributor Siemens Valued Contributor
Siemens Valued Contributor

'do_heal' is the correct entry in the checker to place the logic (such as your journal) to fix the problem. Based on your reply, I feel you are on the right route. 

 

With healing capability (as your checker has provided 'do_heal' method as well as the required 'heal_method' option in checker), Check-Mate allows either 'manual healing' or 'auto healing', which is controlled by both Check-Mate customer default as well as the 'heal method' in checker. 

 

The 'manual healing' means user has the 'heal' MB3 on the HD3D Check-Mate tool on the test node and the 'do_heal' of the checker will be executed if user chooses this 'heal' MB3. 

 

The 'auto healing' means when you run Check-Mate checking, the 'do_heal' will be automatically run if the fail logged from 'do_check' and Check-Mate will ensure a new checking execution after the 'do_heal' has modify the part. 

 

Does that make sense to you?

 

Re: Executing a Journal from Checkmate, bad practice?

Gears Esteemed Contributor Gears Esteemed Contributor
Gears Esteemed Contributor

@Alexander__ wrote:

I wanted to get some opinions on this. Does anyone see a reason why its bad practice to execute a journal from checkmate? We have checkmate set to save the part on a successful check. I am considering implementing info only check that calls a journal that auto set the view to our main default, fits, and sets an ISO.

What do yall think?


It sounds like you just want to set up the view as desired right before the file is saved. If so, this can be accomplished with some menu script and/or a user exit. A pre-action can be set on the save function that would call your journal that does the view manipulation; this would be independent of any check-mate checks.