Classification of a Classification with multiple names doens't work

Nuno

Hi,

A classification obtained from rules with another classification works fine. In this example Level 2 is obtain automaticly from Level 3:

Howhever, if the classification in the rules has multiple names active:

then it stops to work:

Is this an unexpected behavior? It would be nice to allow to make multiclassifications from an original multiclassification.

Regards

Nuno

nicolaspierret

I have the same issue, using nested classification. I was wondering if this issue is known by developers.

john.lipp

For multiple classification, the classification name is all matching classification names seperated by a semicolon. If you look at the Classified Components tab of the classification with multiple names active, it should look similar to when I turn it on for uniclass below:

Therefore, rather than just the name of one of the classifications, you’ll need to put an asterisk before and after the classification name to match the name. This is mentioned in the following post https://society.solibri.com/topic/1263/required-classification-check-sol-11-not-working-giving-wrong-results-when-multiple-classifications-are-allowed/4

JSN

@john-lipp I am not sure but I interpret what @Nuno said a bit differently …

Is this an unexpected behavior? It would be nice to allow to make multiclassifications from an original multiclassification.

I think this is what illustrates the issue …

… and you also point it out:

For multiple classification, the classification name is all matching classification names seperated by a semicolon.

For us, using nested classifications is great to federate information and single value classification can be handed over many times.
However it kinda breaks if multiple classifications suddenly end up in a concatenated string of values if they are used in a nested way.

Is there a valid reason why in the above example Classification B is not simply mirroring Classification A with the following settings?

Imho this would make things easier. Colleagues are always asking me why this is like it is …

john.lipp

the value of =1 demonstrates the collection exploded to a single string if you use the contains or matches operator in filters of rules. You should use One Of and None Of in rule filters.

Your example using “Compartment Wall” and “Wall” as classification names demonstrates the problem of trying to use *Wall* with multiple classifications since it would match Compartment Wall even if it wasn’t classified as such.

If you look at the unclassified or classified components rules for a multiple classification column, it shows that the classifications aren’t semicolon, but comma separated and have a bracket when there are collection of multiple classifications:

So to use the multiple classifications in a column of classification rules, you’ll need to consider the classification name being at the start, end, middle, or the only classification name:
Start: [NAME, *
End: *, NAME]
Middle: *, NAME, *
Only: [NAME]

I’ve logged this issue with our development team as:

Multiple Classification Name selection in Classification Rules requires asterisks #1064

JSN

@john-lipp

Thanks for the detailed reply John! For the sake of clarification I just wanted to add that we do not always know all the values or want to hardcode all possible classification rules.

Sometimes the need for nested classifications is simply because we need to “pass on” values from multiple classifications to federate them in a single one and/or we want to “enrich” elements of existing classifications by also using their values in another nested classification.

If a change in the original classification would also require manual adjustments in other classifications the usability is gone and errors are the logical result as changes are no longer to be made in just one place to be put in effect.

john.lipp

@JSN

Thanks for pointing this out. That is an important point and main point of using classifications with the =1 notations to pass values along as classification names. I’ve added the comment and link to your comment to #1064 in our tracking system