Sage 100

Did Sage submit the issue to Development for review to determine if it is a defect or WAD?

Supposedly next-level support will review it today and determine if it needs to go to development or if it is an intentional "feature". An additional problem is that if someone does ROI before ROG, the freight is no longer there if they wanted to do landed cost. So I think this will find its way to development, then it becomes a question of how long we wait for a fix. 

Supposedly next-level support will review it today and determine if it needs to go to development or if it is an intentional "feature". An additional problem is that if someone does ROI before ROG, the freight is no longer there if they wanted to do landed cost. So I think this will find its way to development, then it becomes a question of how long we wait for a fix. 

Did Sage submit the issue to Development for review to determine if it is a defect or WAD?

At this point I would take any logic here, even if it didn't suit the client - at least I would have a reason! I tested out invoicing only part of the freight to see if it would leave the balance in the freight field but unfortunately it still zeroed it out. The second invoice didn't pull the remainder of the freight so I'm still logic-less in this issue. But I appreciate the ideas!

Supposedly next-level support will review it today and determine if it needs to go to development or if it is an intentional "feature". An additional problem is that if someone does ROI before ROG, the freight is no longer there if they wanted to do landed cost. So I think this will find its way to development, then it becomes a question of how long we wait for a fix. 

Did Sage submit the issue to Development for review to determine if it is a defect or WAD?

At this point I would take any logic here, even if it didn't suit the client - at least I would have a reason! I tested out invoicing only part of the freight to see if it would leave the balance in the freight field but unfortunately it still zeroed it out. The second invoice didn't pull the remainder of the freight so I'm still logic-less in this issue. But I appreciate the ideas!

Supposedly next-level support will review it today and determine if it needs to go to development or if it is an intentional "feature". An additional problem is that if someone does ROI before ROG, the freight is no longer there if they wanted to do landed cost. So I think this will find its way to development, then it becomes a question of how long we wait for a fix. 

Did Sage submit the issue to Development for review to determine if it is a defect or WAD?

I looked at the code. FreightAmt and PrepaidFreightAmt do get reset to 0 by design in the Receipt Register Update for a ROI or a ROG that has the InvoiceNo filled in. Obviously we don't have a design document to review but it looks like this logic may have been introduced when the AppliedPurchaseOrderNo field was added to PO_ReceiptDetail table some versions ago to support the feature that allows multiple POs to be applied to a single ROG or ROI.

This is just my theory but in following the code block I thought it was going to check if MultiplePurchaseOrdersApplied$ = Y in PO_ReceiptHeader before resetting the PO freight fields to 0. It did not do that but maybe it should?? It's also thoroughly complicated with all this freight line and sales tax allocation logic. I do think something got missed in the design but I have a feeling Sage will say this will not get fixed in the short term as it will have unknown risky impact in other areas, so maybe you ask client to use PO History Inquiry instead for cost metrics (or offer to create a UDF_BudgetFreightAmt that would get copied into from FreightAmt via script on Table PreWrite so original PO freight gets preserved)

At this point I would take any logic here, even if it didn't suit the client - at least I would have a reason! I tested out invoicing only part of the freight to see if it would leave the balance in the freight field but unfortunately it still zeroed it out. The second invoice didn't pull the remainder of the freight so I'm still logic-less in this issue. But I appreciate the ideas!

Supposedly next-level support will review it today and determine if it needs to go to development or if it is an intentional "feature". An additional problem is that if someone does ROI before ROG, the freight is no longer there if they wanted to do landed cost. So I think this will find its way to development, then it becomes a question of how long we wait for a fix. 

Did Sage submit the issue to Development for review to determine if it is a defect or WAD?

I looked at the code. FreightAmt and PrepaidFreightAmt do get reset to 0 by design in the Receipt Register Update for a ROI or a ROG that has the InvoiceNo filled in. Obviously we don't have a design document to review but it looks like this logic may have been introduced when the AppliedPurchaseOrderNo field was added to PO_ReceiptDetail table some versions ago to support the feature that allows multiple POs to be applied to a single ROG or ROI.

This is just my theory but in following the code block I thought it was going to check if MultiplePurchaseOrdersApplied$ = Y in PO_ReceiptHeader before resetting the PO freight fields to 0. It did not do that but maybe it should?? It's also thoroughly complicated with all this freight line and sales tax allocation logic. I do think something got missed in the design but I have a feeling Sage will say this will not get fixed in the short term as it will have unknown risky impact in other areas, so maybe you ask client to use PO History Inquiry instead for cost metrics (or offer to create a UDF_BudgetFreightAmt that would get copied into from FreightAmt via script on Table PreWrite so original PO freight gets preserved)

At this point I would take any logic here, even if it didn't suit the client - at least I would have a reason! I tested out invoicing only part of the freight to see if it would leave the balance in the freight field but unfortunately it still zeroed it out. The second invoice didn't pull the remainder of the freight so I'm still logic-less in this issue. But I appreciate the ideas!

Supposedly next-level support will review it today and determine if it needs to go to development or if it is an intentional "feature". An additional problem is that if someone does ROI before ROG, the freight is no longer there if they wanted to do landed cost. So I think this will find its way to development, then it becomes a question of how long we wait for a fix. 

Did Sage submit the issue to Development for review to determine if it is a defect or WAD?