Sage 100

Customer ""upgraded"" from Sage 100 v4.4 to 2013 Standard. As part of that upgrade there is now a ""Customer Status"" field in the AR Master. If you look at the customer it appears to default to ""Active"". However DFDM and the field is actually blank until you manually go into customer master and make a change. Is this the standard processing ? This has precluded the customer from using the Customer Status field as select criteria in the statement printing (for example). And if this is default behavior is there a way to flag all (or a portion) of the customers as ""ACTIVE"" without DFDM, manual keypunch of VI? Note: The Global Customer Field Change does NOT allow changing this field

According to the customer this is now a required entry for new customers. It would appear as if the conversion should create a flag for ""Active

One would think so, but this is Sage. TME required to do it right. Looks like a VI job is in their future....

I don't know the answers to those questions, but I stumbled on this (see screenshot) not long ago - in case it's at all helpful.

I'm opening a case with Sage. I've gotten to the point where I ""stop loss"" a lot of this technical foolishness. I'm not poking around forever for a WAD and then the customer insists we call Sage ""just to check"". I just call ASAP and use the customer account #. I'll update with what Sage has to say.

Cannot duplicate this issue converting v4.50 data to 2013 PU1 on my local machine. Considering it a data issue of some sort. Also customer has a large number of UDF fields on their production system which I have not mirrored on mine so i am unsure whether that could have been a factor.

in the meantime - would it be possible to use the NOT EQUAL Inactive for your reports instead of Equal Active? (Tough about the Temps, sorry)

I don't think so on the statement printing because it's a check box and according to the customer if the field is blank nothing is selected so you then cannot print statements ---- which naturally is what they want to do. Like right this second....

If you go into Customer Maintenance and click accept, does it change it in DFDM? How many customers are we talking about?

Over 3,000 customers. Still looking at this. They have about 12-20 UDF in the customer master which may need updating in some way.

It's very odd when I look at their data file for AR_CUSTOMER the UDFS are not at the very bottom like I think they should be. And their CustomerStatus$ is field 121 while my machine shows it as Field 38

I can go to the customer Sage 100, change a customer status manually to active and it takes. I have not been able to pull down the AR_Customer and change through VI on my computer. I suspect it's because of the UDFS that the customer made on their machine?

Looks like I was able to use my copy of VI to change this. What was throwing me is that the field numbers for the standard fields did not match. For example I think CustomerStatus is #38 (AR_Customer) on my local Sage 100 2013 but was # 121 on the customer version because the UDF fields seem as if they moved some of the field numbering around.

I have regularly seen instances where the field numbers don't match between our reference library and the customers system even though we are running the same version and the UDFs are all at the bottom. I have also run into files where the UDFs were in two groups, one at the bottom and another further up. Perhaps someone here can explain why these things occur.

I ""think"" the two groups of UDFS are first group is created on version xx. Then you upgrade and there are new standard fields added to the file, and they go at the bottom. Then you add some more UDFs to this version, so they make a second group at the bottom.

Can't explain it but have seen the UDF's in the middle of the data instead of at the bottom, mostly in CI_Item.

I think it's possible that there is a Sage product defect regarding file conversion of AR_Customer. It likely has to do with an issue when you have these UDF files and the CustomerStatus$ field is not the expected field number. I could not duplicate an issue by converting 4.5 data to 2013 PU1 but I'd be willing to bet that there is some type of issue. Seems too coincidental that this happened on both the company codes and both had the same UDF field stuck up in the middle of the file layout.