Sage 100

Possible #bug in #4.5. Maybe I'm wrong and this is WAD, but I think it's a bug. Client is importing invoices every morning. They have batching turned on because they do some manual, some imported. In the VI job, the BatchNo field is set to a blank column. After they run the import (and VI doesn't report any errors or problems), they open the imported batch, but when they try to pick an invoice from the list, it says, ""Invoice already exists in batch ."" DFDM shows that the BatchNo field on the SO_InvoiceHeader is blank. It seems to me that using a blank column for the BatchNo is the right way to do this, and I don't remember having this issue ever come up before. What do you all think?

Try hard coding a batch number (e.g. 77777) for the import.

It should work as you've configured it, not WAD.

Is the blank column at the far right? At one time, this was recommended.

Are they first hitting Test before they Accept? Maybe they shouldn't (just a thought)

I know if you hit Test, it creates the batch - I've had it happen many times. If you then click Accept, it usually doesn't matter.

Have silent prayers been said before clicking accept? Starting around 4.2 - 4.3 I think that began to be a requirement for some imports.

LOL @WayneSchulz! I've never admitted it, but yes, ""Oh Lord, please let this work as expected!!

I have hard coded batch numbers and it works with no issues. I just imported hundreds of invoices today for a client and hard coded the batch number.

I always assign a batch number; not sure why, just know that it works...

Somehow me email responses aren't making it back. Yes the blank is to the right. No we are not hitting test first. Yes we could hard code the batch number. I've gone far as to say prayers out loud. I'm going to submit this as a bug.

Why not just create a batch before importing and run time assign the batch # at import? I do not think are going to get anywhere reporting as a bug other than wasting a case.

@AaronClark Please submit as a bug... this needs to work properly, especially when we're doing unattended imports and rely upon MAS 90 to work as documented. While there are temporary workarounds, they're just that.

Reported. I'll let you all know what happens.

As I am thinking about this more, maybe you should assign the batch number with the next command pointing it to the blank column.

I don't think the Next command works with this BatchNo.

This from Scott You are correct that this ""trick"" no longer works to get the next batch number. Unfortunately, I cannot submit as a bug because this procedure is just a way to ""trick"" the system to get the next batch number. Good thing for us is that there is always more than one way to skin a cat. We can set the operation for Batch to assign and leave the assigned value blank this will give you the next batch number. Scott Brady

Scott said this will correctly write out the batch number to the header.

Assuming the solution is assign the value to be blank and NOT a blank from a column.

I'll give it a try. Thanks guys!