Developer forum

Forum » PIM » Asset category - Auto checkin - Undocumented feature or simple coincidence?

Asset category - Auto checkin - Undocumented feature or simple coincidence?

Michael Knudsen

Hello forum,

- I have spend some time playing around with a pattern for images and especially how set the primary image (DW9.13.8), because I almost convinced a customer that there should be a 'prefix' on the primary image, if we should use the auto checkin feature on assets.

Example with 4 images for a product:

  • 010177_0014.jpg (should be primary product image)
  • 010177_0014_1.jpg (2nd product image)
  • 010177_0014_lifestyle.jpg (1st lifestyle image)
  • 010177_0014_lifestyle_1.jpg (2nd lifestyle image)

Normally would I write the pattern straight ahead as: {ProductId};{ProductId}_*;{ProductId}_lifestyle*; because I assumed the first rule would be the match for the 'Primary image rule' = 'None'. But so easy shouldn't be, it was not my expected default image, that was marked as primary image on the product. I ended up reversing the pattern and suddenly it worked out as expected.

But the question is, is this a undocumented feature or simple coincidence?


Br. Michael Knudsen


Oleg Rodionov Dynamicweb Employee
Oleg Rodionov


please, confirm the behavior you have seen is out of details described in the manual, first of all. Thanks.

BR, Oleg QA  

Michael Knudsen

Hello Oleg,

- of course have I checked the documentation and forum posts before I created this thread, but I haven't found anything related to the order of pattern rules.

The documentation doesn't mention it's possible to have more rules per pattern separated by ; (semicolon), but Søren Jensen have showed several times.

Br. Michael Knudsen

Michael Knudsen

@Oleg or @Søren Jensen do you have anything to add or should I send it to support for clearification?

Br. Michael Knudsen

Søren Jensen Dynamicweb Employee
Søren Jensen

Hi Michael,

Send it to support, so they can test the behavior are correct



You must be logged in to post in the forum