Sage 100

If anyone here was a victim of the 2022 PU6 problems with the "Tax class is missing" errors (Solution 240517161150897) AND has Operations Management installed for the client, I have had to obtain multiple program fixes from Scanco over the last couple months to help resolve. There ended up being one more issue that was found by one client where invoices that contained work tickets showed doubled/invalid "Sales Subject to Commission", "Costs Subject to Commission", "Gross Profit" and "Commission Amount" values within the AR_InvoiceHistoryHeader, AR_SalespersonCommission and AR_SalespersonHistory tables. After going through and fixing all records I audited last week, assuming only invoices that occurred before the latest set of fixes were affected, we encountered some more this week. When I responded to the older ticket, David Gunnell and James Leazier responded that the issue was known and there were SO158_SalesJournalX program fixes available. While I was grateful to receive the fixes today and am hopeful I never see this issue again, I am very frustrated that I had to chase it. I should've been notified under the old case that there were potentially other files I would need for the related issues. Anyways, vent over for now. Since the "tax class" error was also reported in 2023 and 2024, I am not sure if the same issues with the sales/commission reporting are occurring with OM invoices in those versions but it may be worthwhile to review.

I'm sorry... We experienced the issue with duplicate posting to commission files in v2023 PU3 Upgrade in November.  It took a week to get the "hot fix" which is not documented anywhere for partners to see.  Our client would not post invoices for that week so it was a rather 'tense standoff" waiting for the fix.  For this same client, they had remote connected and modified a program to work properly with Repay CC.  The first version of the commission problem they sent me did not include the Repay Hot Fix.  I had to send them the programs installed at the client so they could retrofit the program to include both fixes.  

I don't think they understand the critical nature of these Hot Fixes not being well documented.  

Thanks, Madeline. I am not sure how they don't understand how helpful it would be to be notified in any way possible that there are defects found and the status of the fixes. I understand that they don't want to publish fixes for download without reviewing the client's IML, etc. but having a Defect ID at least would be useful.