table components with sublevels (double)

[Rufy]

Hi, everybody, I have a little problem.

my set is structured as follows:

asm_master
- Asmdx
--component1
--component2
--component3

- Asmsx
--component1
--component2
--component3

-component4
-component4
-component5
- What?

in the table I make a component appear once indicating the quantity, I do not care to show the subaxis but only individually the components that make them, so I excluded from table the subaxis asmdx and asmsx. the problem is as follows: use in attributes the function no double, in fact per component4 for example indicates me quantity equal to two.
per component1 instead creates me two different lines, which report the same component, with quantity 1 (the same thing per component2 and component3). I would like these to bring them to me once in a table with the actual quantity. Is it possible?

 

[calacc]

hi rufy, a question: "how did you exclude from the bom asmdx and asmsx subaxes? "

I in my repetition region, to exclude sub-axis I entered a filter by rule with words &asm.mbr.type != assembly and doing so does not happen to me to have double components, because my bom works just on type components part, therefore even if the same component finds it in 2 or 3 different sub-axis, in the bom it appears once only with the total q.tà. . .

 

[Rufy]

hi rufy, a question: "how did you exclude from the bom asmdx and asmsx subaxes? "

I in my repetition region, to exclude sub-axis I entered a filter by rule with words &asm.mbr.type != assembly and doing so does not happen to me to have double components, because my bom works just on type components part, therefore even if the same component finds it in 2 or 3 different sub-axis, in the bom it appears once only with the total q.tà. . .

I had actually eliminated by element hoping that then with attributes-->no double went right.
at this point I used the filter by rule, with your string, the assemblies have disappeared, but the double parts still remain there with meter 1 for each.
What's wrong?

thanks for the intervention. .

 

[Rufy]

Okay, I got it! I was using doubles with the order of my tree, so having an order in the sub-axis he couldn't shorten my sub-parts together. using simply no doubles, with the order he wants, it went to me!
Thank you very much because you gave me the right tip!

 

[calacc]

Good then! I'm glad you solved:

soon, good work