Skip to main content
Solved

Production Order Type Setting: Add Suffix for Production Subassemblies - Weird Behavior

  • December 9, 2025
  • 4 replies
  • 44 views

Forum|alt.badge.img

Hello!

I was wondering if anyone had this issue when using this setting on the Production Order Types screen.

I turned this on to better track our subassemblies so everything can be categorized under the parent production order #. But what’s weird is that it causes the Production Order # to skip a bunch of iterations, seemingly at random.

See below for a screenshot. These were all Production Orders that were created within the last ~5 days. And I am certain that there is no way that someone created around 7000 Production Orders only to delete them in that timeframe.

For some reason it jumps from POP027009-000 → POP027746-000 all the way to the most recent which is POP037933-000. And in this screenshot, the earliest production order (POP027009-000) to the most recent (POP037933-000) jumps over 10,000 iterations. Prior to turning this setting on the numbering sequence worked as intended.

 

Is there something conflicting between this setting and the numbering sequence?

 

Does anyone know why this is happening and is anyone experiencing a similar issue? 

 

Thank you!

Best answer by jdunmire

@jdunmire I just tested in the sales demo 25R1 and can't reproduce this issue. My guess is it might be related to the numbering sequence configuration. Is the Order Numbering Sequence is shared with any other numbering sequence?
 

 

Found that the numbering sequence for our production order was for some reason shared with the Master Production Schedule...an area that we don’t use, which caused the discrepancies.

Thanks for the idea to check that out!

4 replies

PaulMainard55
Captain II
Forum|alt.badge.img+2

@jdunmire - I’ve not seen this before, but thank you for sharing.  I’m working on a very complicated project with an Engineer to Order manufacturer and was planning to leverage this feature to the extent the client wants to move away from phantom routing (more scheduling control, we think).  Have you opened a ticket with support?  If so, please share their findings with us.

In terms of the problem at hand, I can’t imagine that anyone is playing around with the numbering sequence, or that a ton of production orders were created then deleted.  While not outside the realm of possibilities, I’d guess it’s highly unlikely.  

Curious though, it was my understanding that the masking for the suffix was not necessary from within the numbering sequence, but was added dynamically.  Am I remembering this wrong?

Given that it’s a new feature, perhaps an “undocumented feature” was triggered.  

Keep us posted on what you find out.  


Forum|alt.badge.img
  • Author
  • Jr Varsity III
  • December 9, 2025

@jdunmire - I’ve not seen this before, but thank you for sharing.  I’m working on a very complicated project with an Engineer to Order manufacturer and was planning to leverage this feature to the extent the client wants to move away from phantom routing (more scheduling control, we think).  Have you opened a ticket with support?  If so, please share their findings with us.

In terms of the problem at hand, I can’t imagine that anyone is playing around with the numbering sequence, or that a ton of production orders were created then deleted.  While not outside the realm of possibilities, I’d guess it’s highly unlikely.  

Curious though, it was my understanding that the masking for the suffix was not necessary from within the numbering sequence, but was added dynamically.  Am I remembering this wrong?

Given that it’s a new feature, perhaps an “undocumented feature” was triggered.  

Keep us posted on what you find out.  

Hey Paul! I am awaiting what the support team says. 

 

You are correct, this was added dynamically and not within the numbering sequence. I’m in your boat where I am assuming an undocumented feature was triggered. 

 

I also working on a project with an Engineer to Order manufacturer and had the same mentality as you. It would be much easier to track multiple sub-assemblies if it was numbered:

POP0#####-000
POP0#####-001
POP0#####-002
etc.

 

Will let you know if I hear anything back!


Forum|alt.badge.img+2

@jdunmire I just tested in the sales demo 25R1 and can't reproduce this issue. My guess is it might be related to the numbering sequence configuration. Is the Order Numbering Sequence is shared with any other numbering sequence?
 

 


Forum|alt.badge.img
  • Author
  • Jr Varsity III
  • Answer
  • December 11, 2025

@jdunmire I just tested in the sales demo 25R1 and can't reproduce this issue. My guess is it might be related to the numbering sequence configuration. Is the Order Numbering Sequence is shared with any other numbering sequence?
 

 

Found that the numbering sequence for our production order was for some reason shared with the Master Production Schedule...an area that we don’t use, which caused the discrepancies.

Thanks for the idea to check that out!