I have Changes with WO's attached and that all works wonderfully. What doesn't though is WO's updating the Change.
If you have the Change open and open a WO from it and if that WO has a UI rule to update the change (like copy the WO deadline to the change) it just doesn't!. Also we get lots of 'merge updates' prompts when adjusting WO's thought the change. What is happening here.
It appears that because the change is open by the user it is basically 'locked' for change by the WO's that are associated it? This is a little fustrating and doesn't seem to be a logical design??
Can anyone breif me on the data updating flow in this situation so I can recreate all my rules so they do work.
I believe HP have a design flaw here but have never gathered enough information in a suitable form to get them to look at it, you could have a try?
If you open a CHA and then one of its WO and make a SIMPLE field change then you seem to be inside some sort of "inner success unit" whereby the CHA will need SAVE AS WELL AS the WO (and indeed the CHA can refuse the SAVE and leave the WO unaltered).
If you now inject DB Rule execution into this equation it appears that saving the WO (inner success unit) can fire rules and if these update the CHA ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE.
Like Ruth says - we have had to advise MOST operators to work at just the WO level. Where they cannot (like when they add a new WO) there has to be a very rapid sequence of "SAVE AND CLOSE WO, SAVE CHA" (CTRL+S will suffice), otherwise there is much cursing as the dreaded "dual update" kicks in.
Still like this on SP19, I have yet to investigate the newer "tell me if a record is open" facility - probably won't help since it is the Rule Manager you are conflicting with!
Oh no!! This is a travesity. Now I have to change all my WO views with the Change Description so we can identify which templates WO relates to what change. I think that this is a very naughty oversight from HP!