Sage 100

Passing values question: I need to take ""Requested by Name"" from PO Material Requisition, then use custom fields to pass them through to the IM_ItemTransaction history file. From what I can tell, it doesn't look like you can do any customization from the PO Material Requisition tables and pass it through to inventory. Either I'm missing something or this just can't be done.

I always work backwards, when trying to get something into history For this I went into the IM_ItemTransactionHistory table and I see in there that you can source this from PO_MaterialReqIssueRegister_upd I have not traced it backwards from there but it appears you can do that. unless I'm misunderstanding what your trying to do

That's exactly what I was getting ready to tell her @DavidOverholt . i think it will work.

Try adding a udf to the IM_TransactionPosting table first using the PO_MaterialRegIssueRegister_UPD Business Object with the POmaterialReqHeader as the data source and your RequestedbyName Column. You can then have the UDF in the IM_ItemTransactionHistory file updated by the posting process.

PO_ReqIssueRegisterWrk file needs a UDF populated from the PO_Material Req Issue Register_Upd - Data Source is PO_MaterialReqHeader

Wow, I love this group. Thanks all!

Related piece of info...a KB we found today Unable to map UDF from PO Material Requisition Header or Detail to IM Transaction Posting Products Sage 100 Description Unable to map user-defined fields (UDFs) from PO Material Requisition Header or PO Material Requisition Detail to IM Transaction Posting in Sage 100 ERP UDFs are available from PO Receipt Header and Detail (via the PO_ReceiptRegister_upd Business Object) and PO Return Header and Detail (via the PO_ReturnRegister_upd Business Object). But not from PO Material Requisition Header or Detail. Resolution Sage Engineering is currently reviewing this issue. Category Custom fields Customization Entitlement Sage 100 Defect ID 104730 Last Modified Date:7-26-2015 ID:66053

Ugh, this is the type of stuff that just drives me crazy. Call it a WAD, call it sloppy QC in the programming department, call it what ever but bottom line if you are going to charge an arm and a leg for M & S, then give us reasons to continue to pay the M & S......

Well, eventually you won't be paying the M&S but paying the 15% to upgrade to 100c and paying subscription....

Paying 15% more, with more lockin, and even less incentive for Sage to actually improve the product

Hey, the end user has OPTIONS now.... They can make a CHOICE....

up until the point where they make a really bad one....

UPDATE: PU 7 for 2014 fixes this glitch.

Tried and tested or this is what they told you? I am from Missouri - The show me state!

It actually did, but a perfectly valid question!