We have the same requirement--is there a way to allow users of one company to view the inventory of another company/branch without giving them branch access?We don’t want to give users the ability to work out of warehouses that don’t belong to their branch; however, we want them to be able to view inventory levels in warehouses of other branches.
@bheyns05 thanks for the idea about the side panels. That may be a viable solution--giving the ability to generate the PDF on demand from the GI would be fantastic. Thanks again, and have a fun week as well!
Thanks for the response @bheyns05 .I did create a separate Generic Inquiry for just Outside Sales, and that is what is working great. The issue I’ve run into is that if I want to give the ability for salespersons to drill into the sales order to view information about it, I seem unable to grant this ability to access a view only version of the entry form without granting access to all of SO.30.10.00.Even if I restrict access to everything below it, they will still see the built-in “Sales Order” under “Transactions”So at the moment I’ll launch it without the ability to drill into a Sales Order form.
@bheyns05 Just wanted to follow up and let you know that these instructions worked great, thank you very much. I ended up making a separate “outside sales” sales order inquiry that allows our sales guys to see only their sales order list. That’s awesome. 😁The thing I’m working with our Acumatica integrators now is how allow these outside sales personnel to drill down into their sales order to see the entry form details WITHOUT giving access to the entirety of SO3010PL. As far as I can tell, the access rights for this (and other similar inquiries like Purchase Order PO3010PL) do not show up as a separate inquiry.Instead, they’re granted by giving read access to the SO.30.10.00 section. Even if you set every lower level field to Revoked, they’ll still have full view rights on the SO3010PL inquiry. So at this point, we’re not able to grant them the ability to drill down into their sales orders. But hopefully we’re able to figure it out soon.
@mtreske1 you are most welcome! will appreciate your feedback. I know that I’m really late on responding to this, but this solution worked well in our environment. Thank you again.
bheyns05,Unless I’m misinterpreting your instructions, I do not believe your suggestion resolves the issue that the original post nor my organization has. The SOOrder.OwnerID ≠ SOOrder.SalesPersonID.We would like to grant view only access to salespersons for sales orders in which they are the default salesperson. In this scenario, they are NOT the SOOrder.OwnerID--the Inside Sales Representative is that is actually creating and processing the order.The “SOOrder.OwnerID = @me” condition would work to show the Inside Sales Representative a list of sales orders they have created, but they could already accomplish that by using the built-in filters on the standard SO generic inquiry.What we’d actually want is something similar to this (I know this doesn’t work), but I’m not sure how to accomplish it.I’ve tried the same with SOLine.SalesPersonID on a Sales Order line item level inquiry, but I run into the same problem. The @me doesn’t appear to actually connect to a salespersonID.
We would love to be able to show our outside salespersons a list of the Sales Orders for which they are the default salesperson and hide all others. To this point, we have not figured out how to accomplish this. I’m happy to see other organizations would like to see this implemented. Since we’re unable to hide all sales orders that aren’t assigned to that specific salesperson, it means we have not been able to open up much of Acumatica to our outside sales staff which diminishes its value.Hoping somebody comes up with a solution to this problem soon.
We’ve been discussing this issue with our integrator partners, and unfortunately, this just seems like something that we have to live with. A 1-to-1 link between Sales Order and Purchase Order appears to be a design decision that trying to customize out would not only be difficult and expensive but also pose problems for every future update. I understand the rationale behind implementing this change; however, in practice, there are use cases that were overlooked and it has a negative impact on companies like mine where we often link multiple sales orders to a single purchase order.
Thank you so much to both of you for the completely thorough responses. I was just hoping to get a bit of direction and to know whether or not it was even possible. I will give this a go and update with the results. This is fantastic.
Already have an account? Login
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.