question

Claire Krupp avatar image
0 Likes"
Claire Krupp asked Claire Krupp commented

Preempt token w Pull from List - history of previous Pulls is lost.

I have a Pull from a List where the number of pieces pulled is tracked in an array (NumSheets):

1674688236705.png

1674688317118.png

I just added a Preemption which stops the Max Wait trackers from measuring off-shift time.

The information on what was already pulled is maintained during the preemption, and the system updates the PULL requested and required on return, so that the correct number of pieces is pulled.

1674688671560.png

BUT the next PULL, which should be NumSheets(3) is starting as if it's a new PULL and replaces the existing array values with the new data. So, when I add up the values in the array to get the total number of pieces pulled, it is wrong.

Is there anything I can do to stop it from doing this?



FlexSim 23.0.1
process flow preemptionselect values to puller labels
1674688236705.png (24.9 KiB)
1674688317118.png (18.2 KiB)
1674688671560.png (6.6 KiB)
5 |100000

Up to 12 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 23.8 MiB each and 47.7 MiB total.

1 Answer

Felix Möhlmann avatar image
0 Likes"
Felix Möhlmann answered Claire Krupp commented

I doubt the behaviour regarding the SELECT statement being written to a label can be changed without rewriting some code in the Process Flow module.

As a workaround I would suggest to use a second, independent label to store the number of pulled sheets. The activity the token is release to when preempting can be used to copy the value(s) from the NumSheets label to this other label. It is then used instead when determining the required quantity when the token is returned to the Pull from List activity.

1674720179265.png

I have attached an example model of how this could look like.

StoreSelectLabel.fsm


1674720179265.png (16.0 KiB)
· 1
5 |100000

Up to 12 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 23.8 MiB each and 47.7 MiB total.

Claire Krupp avatar image Claire Krupp commented ·
Thanks @Felix Möhlmann , I was working on a similar workaround, which does work, though it's not as efficient as yours, and I did not do step 2, which I will add now.
0 Likes 0 ·