Skip to main content

All, tearing my hair out over this. GL stuff is way above my head.

Basically, we need to print out GL accounts associated with a batch. This is where it goes above my head… sometimes a batch also has an associated PO with an attached GL account (POLine.ExpenseAcctID).

You can see in the first screenshot, the amazon GLTran is duplicated numerous times.

In the second screen, I added a grouping, it fixed things visually, but it broke things more than fixed. I don’t think the issue is grouping but a relationship/join.

Verde Valley Hardware and UPS correct; Linde and Amazon are repeated
Totals for Hardware and UPS are correct but shouldn’t be grouped, and Amazon is incorrect

I’ve attached the xml if anyone could take a look… thank you!

@swartzfeger Hi! From a cursory review, I believe you have a number of unnecessary tables and joins.  Suggest choosing wither ARReister or ARInvoice - both should not be required. Also the BAccount table should not be required.  Also not sure why the PO tables were included but that is a cause of the majority of the duplication of records. 

Try linking ARRegister to Vendor and also ARRegister to GLTran.  That gives you access to all the fields you have currently listed in the Results Grid.

Let me know if you have questions!

Michelle


@swartzfeger Hi! From a cursory review, I believe you have a number of unnecessary tables and joins.  Suggest choosing wither ARReister or ARInvoice - both should not be required. Also the BAccount table should not be required.  Also not sure why the PO tables were included but that is a cause of the majority of the duplication of records. 

Try linking ARRegister to Vendor and also ARRegister to GLTran.  That gives you access to all the fields you have currently listed in the Results Grid.

Let me know if you have questions!

Michelle

Hi Michelle, thanks! It was an old report that I had “repurposed” and cleaned it up. Most of the stuff in there wasn’t even needed for the original.

Based on your feedback I think this is exactly what they needed. Thanks again!


Reply