@ChandrasekharM Thanks for the reply. So the assumption here is that discounted/free orders would need to go under their own order type. There’s not a way to make the requirement dynamic based on the product margin? Just clarifying, thanks.
Hi @Dana Moffat, sure I’m happy to participate. Although we aren’t actively using the discount functionality I’ve outlined above, because it doesn’t align with our business needs. But i’m happy to weigh in on this topic.
Hello, I’ve been trying to follow that Acumatica Developers Blog article, but I can’t get this functionality to work. I’m trying to surface information from an SO Line in a notification email body. I will modify and format it further once I get it to work, but no luck so far. My template is referencing the main Sales Order screen (SO301000). Notification TemplateActual Email Body
@Dana Moffat do you know when Acumatica plans to come out with a solution for this? It seems like a “Process Allocations” screen would be a pretty easy thing to release. And while there are a few customizations out there, none of them are perfect, and it just adds $ unnecessarily to customers’ Acumatica bill. In other words, I think Acumatica needs to solve for this since it is way too inefficient to allocate order lines manually. Please prioritize this, thanks!
Thanks @Hannah Barnes, and I see the same results most of the time. I just tested a simple scenario in our sandbox (we’re on 22R1) and it automatically adds the warehouse detail like you just validated. However, I have several examples in our live site where this is not the case. Can you think of any settings (on stock items, customer profiles, order types, etc.) that would prevent this from happening automatically? And is there not a way to “Recalculate Costs” on an open SO?Thanks for the help
Any more thoughts on this @Hannah Barnes, or should we submit a support ticket?
@Chris Hackett thanks for checking in.I’ve since learned that when an Item x Warehouse combination doesn’t exist and its added to a sales order, it does add the combination to the Item Warehouse Details table. However, it still puts a $0 cost on that SO Line, even though the Stock Item has a cost. Acumatica support has identified this as a bug. They have not informed me of when it will be fixed. The only way to get it to update its cost is to change the warehouse briefly on the SO Line, then change it back—which is not a reliable solution, but works okay in some cases.
I am also puzzled by discrepancies in these calculations vs. what the documentation says. Acumatica team, do you have any insight into this? Thanks for surfacing this @K2a
@Jeff96 here’s the PO Receipt.
I can send you a Bill screenshot too, but I don’t see anywhere on the Receipt or Bill documents that mention freight at all.
@Jeff96
@Jeff96 the “Freight Allocation on Partial Shipping” is related to Freight Prices, not Costs. Also we have it set to “Full Amount First Time”. I’m concerned with Costs. Where is the $75.57 cost coming from on that Drop-Shipment PO Receipt? That shows up in our customer margins but is not applicable whatsoever.
@Dana Moffat I wanted to circle back on this topic from a year ago and see if there have been any significant improvements to WMS recently or coming soon? We’re still on 23 R1 FYI. Our warehouse team is still printing Picking Worksheets, using the paper worksheets to pick products manually, and then deleting the picking worksheets (because there’s no way to manually mark the worksheet as fully picked, that i’m aware of). Using the handhelds is extremely inefficient. I’m hoping that Acumatica has put some thought into this, and has some improvements coming soon. Thanks
I guess I’ll add this to the list of acu-magical mysteries unless someone else has any thoughts?
@Chris Hackett not yet. Acumatica support has been investigating for several weeks but nothing yet.
Sorry for the delay — yes Acumatica support got back to me. They said that a change request is reported to our analyst team to correct this issue.They suggested two workarounds that unfortunately weren’t applicable/possible based on our situation. @Dana Moffat case #344071
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.