Material Issues: When running this GI, Customer # is not being shown.

​@ccharris01 

Could you share the GI please?

Yes, a screenshot showing the Results of your GI, along with the GI requested by ​@aiwan will be most helpful in solving your question. Thank you!

This is the GL Trans details:  Standard Acumatica view that you cannot customize through Edit GI.

1. Customer/Vendor is blank  (Info is available on the ISS)
2. Trans Description is part Desc.  (Part # would be better)
3. If you return to the ISS, you can add SO#, but not Customer or Line.
4. In the GL - SO, WO, Part # should all be available.  To create a GI for this, there are too many related tables, creating multiple duplicate records

5. 

   If anyone has created a GI showing GL transaction details for MFG I would be grateful.  I am looking to follow a part through the entire MRP process.  SO, WO, WIP, FG, Variance, Ship, Invoice/COGS.  

6. Yes, I know entering the SO does not create any GL transactions, nor does running MRP.  Once the WO is created and transactions start, it would be nice to have WO and Part # referenced on every transaction - Labor, Material issue, OH.

​@ccharris01 

Could you please explain ISS?

FYI, this is not a GI, it looks similar but is actually a data view defined in the code of Acumatica.

It looks like this is an inventory transaction. You can create a GI which links the GLTran line back to INTran, which you would then link back to the SOShipment record. The trick to not having duplicates is utilising a join which is similar to this:

GLTran Inner Join INRegister

Module Equals =’IN’

BatchNbr Equals BatchNbr

INRegister Inner Join INTran

DocType Equals DocType

RefNbr Equals RefNbr

INTran Inner Join SOShipment

SOShipmentType Equals ShipmentType

SOShipmentNbr Equals ShipmentNbr

The use of Module Equals =’IN’ should prevent any duplication you may receive if you did not include it prior.

ISS is Inventory>Issues  which is the source GI.

While I understand your joins, the problem is the different sources required to each GL transaction based on the different refnbr Acumatica uses.  Labor is different the material issues, which is different from closing WIP and posting variance, which is different than shipping, which is different than posting the sale/cogs.   

It was a lot easier in my last software, as the MFG transactions were all one type, requiring one join.

I appreciate it is a lot of tables to join, I have attached a similar GI I have.

Another way is via customisation. Your VAR would be the first point of call.

​@aiwan 

I would love to see you GI. The uploads is saying the version is higher than we are. 

What version are you on.  We are still 2024R1, although I have been pushing for 2025R2 since December.

Hi ​@aiwan - Would you be able to share these with ​@ccharris01?

Thanks for the nudge ​@Chris Hackett 

​@ccharris01 are you still on 24R1?

Aiwan,

We are running 24R2.  Our var did not recommened 25R1 or R2 at our go live.  We are working on a 26R1 sandbox install to review, so that might be sometime around Sept.

Okay, thank you

​@ccharris01 See attached for an example GI I just put together in my 24R2 sandbox, it should work in your current environment. Please be aware the reason why Customer isn’t available out of the box is most likely because of the “many to one” relationship within this record. The example I provided prints all of the individual Inventory Transactions and then groups them back together and sums the quantity and extended prices. You may want to play with the grouping or just remove the grouping altogether and use this GI as an “Issues Detail” report instead.  
 

amorey,

I will look at this in more detail.  But I think this gets me a lot closer than I was before.
I had a few missing customers, but a few missing is a lot less then many.
thanks!

cch