Sage 100

Can someone tell me again why Expire/ShipDate is NOT in the Sales Order History Header file??????????

Probably for the same reason the POLineIndex number is not in receipt history.

Sage is holding back these features until the 2018 ""c"" release in tandem with the 18% subscription price increase.

Have you considered putting in an enhancement request"" as ""it is working as designed"". Wink... wink... ""We will address it... if it gets enough likes.

Actually, I did suggest it to Diane Coffman under the guise of SUPREMELY QUICK FIXES...

Agreed. It should be there. I always have to resort to lastInvoiceDate or link to AR_InvoiceHistory and get the ShipDate from there

If you want an on-time report, you really want the original ShipExpireDate, not the Invoice Ship Date, because you want to compare the two. So you can use the Promise Date, but there could be issues with that.

I think the promise date is the way to go. The promise date is saved in the so_salesorderhistorydetail. If the order isnt shipped complete then the ShipExpireDate from the header doesn;t work either.

The customer could request different delivery dates for different items on the same order.

They could, but mine don't, and that means adding another link. Yeah, I'm just crabby about the whole thing.

Is there a way via scripting to copy it to a udf during order entry and then link to the udf in the history file?

I've added it to the Invoice HIstory Header before and will again, but that doesn't help us with historical data. Stop making work arounds for something that's stupid! LOL

Beth, I agree - that field and the Order type have been a pet peeve of mine forever! I've added UDFs here and there as well but then it is only useful going forward for the client. I went to the Sage ideas site to vote on it and was surprised to find it is not there. so I added it if anyone wants to vote for it. https://www5.v1ideas.com/TheSageGroupplc/Sage100ERP/Idea/Detail/27404

Awesome. Yeah, I forgot about order type, too!

Why on earth wouldn't Sage have some type of quarterly meeting with consultants to solicit this type of feedback? I understand it would mean that they'd have to come out from under their desks and the factions within Sage would need to communicate....

The voting is ridiculous. Many times users don't know how valuable a feature is or have even imagined a feature until it is given to them.

Wayne it is probably because they would be forced to face reality and produce meaningful enhancements. Enhancements cost money and reduce quarterly profits. Short term public company view. Long term private companies know that innovation and enhancements will eventually provide a pay back on the investment. Subscription is also a disincentive for Sage to invest in the product. They no longer have to justify improvement because the end user pays the subscription / rent. Perpetual / maintenance requires Sage justify the user's cost with enhancements of equivalent value.

I know Sage has a product advisory council for Sage 100 but, like BPAC, it seems to be a lot of ""rear window driving"" where Sage rolls out things they've already decided on. Why can't there be a Diane / Kevin / Scott Munro type meeting via phone where they ask people what's going well and what's not. Better yet, set it up online and keep it strictly to technical discussions. I think it would be a huge win-win. Some of this stuff doesn't seem at all that expensive to implement though I agree with Doug and add that Sage has definitely started running their Sage 100/300/500 line for cash vs trying to sell meaningful new licenses.

Summit, Partner Day, as it should be: substantive dialog with partners about the product.

Yes, but it is only once a year. Some type of quarterly or more frequent dialogue would be encouraging. But then, we do have the idea web site...

I agree completely. Perhaps once per patch / release (so three times a year) to review what's being included in the development cycle, with recommendations from 90-minders on things to include for the next round... things that might not be overly marketable, but still provide real value.

You all have such pie-in-the-sky ideals!! Good for you but don't hold your breath!! :smiley:

It is working as designed. Say it with me: It is working as designed.

It's working sucky as designed. Nope! Can't say it.

My phrasing is ""the designer is defective

Funny, had a customer email me a question about this today. At least didn't have to spend a lot of time searching for the answer...

They had to leave that field out so they could put in the eBusinessManager fields....