Best Of

Hi

Thanks for your reply.

I found the issue, due to a line had empty Journal Line Number, after filling the Line number printed properly.

The issue can be solved very simple way - just add CurrPage.UPDATE to OnValidate trigger of the controls that contain global variables.

Hello,

In the "Item Variants" page we have a customized field "Packsation" - "Packtisch". By validating or changing this field, the new value should also be updated on the "Packstation" field on the "Sales Line" table.

The error occurs in the Item Variants page and not in the Sales Order Subform page


Therefore, I have this code in the OnValidate trigger of the table:

trigger OnValidate()
var
SalesOrderLineMgmt: Codeunit "Sales Order Line Management";
begin
if Rec.Packstation <> xRec.Packstation then
SalesOrderLineMgmt.UpdatePackstation(Rec."Item No.", Rec.Code, Packstation);
end;


The UpdatePackstation will do the changes on the Sales Lines:
procedure UpdatePackstation(ItemNo: Code[20]; ItemVariantCode: Code[20]; NewPackstation: Enum "ACH Packstation")
var
SalesLine: Record "Sales Line";
begin
SalesLine.SetCurrentKey("Document Type", Type, "No.", "Variant Code", "Is Weighed", "Location Code", "Shipment Date");
SalesLine.SetRange("Document Type", SalesLine."Document Type"::Order);
SalesLine.SetRange(Type, SalesLine.Type::Item);
SalesLine.SetRange("No.", ItemNo);
SalesLine.SetRange("Variant Code", ItemVariantCode);
SalesLine.SetRange("Is Weighed", false);
SalesLine.SetRange("Location Code", BKLbl);
SalesLine.SetFilter("Shipment Date", '%1..', Today());

SalesLine.ModifyAll(Packstation, NewPackstation, false);
end;


The problem is this error only occurs directly in customers system environment and due to this, it's not possible to recreate this error locally or in development environment. Maybe the reason is the fact that multiple users a working parallely.

How can I solve this problem? By using a Tablelock maybe?

Thank you in advance!

Hi,

I managed to skip the line in Code397 and it worked.


CollectCurrentUserEmailAddresses(VAR TempNameValueBuffer : TEMPORARY Record "Name/Value Buffer")
AddAddressToCollection('UserSetup',GetEmailFromUserSetupTable,TempNameValueBuffer);
AddAddressToCollection('AuthEmail',GetAuthenticationEmailFromUserTable,TempNameValueBuffer);
//AddAddressToCollection('AD',GetActiveDirectoryMailFromUser,TempNameValueBuffer);

kristiela, you understood it all correctly, yes!

I would not recommend using the existing Sales Blocked because it already has some functionality in the system, but you understood I was suggesting that maybe you could create another field with similar purpose.

But you also understood correctly that it would be a costly processing if, for every line, you would need to "reset" the new "blocked" field to run the logic again to block items that have already been added to the sales line. I think it would not only be costly, but you would also run into issues if multiple users ran the functionality at the same time.

Then you asked:

Is it possible to achieve the desired result (I understand the popup won't be little then) with the `OnLookup` trigger for the respective "No." field? I can't think of a way to filter all the items so that only those that are NOT found in the particular order's lines remain in the Item record. Could you please help with this logic?

This is definitely possible, and it would be a much cleaner solution, in my mind. The only drawback, is that when you code an OnLookup trigger to a field, the little popup will be deactivated.

Here's an example of the No. field WITHOUT an OnLookup trigger:



Here's an example of the No. field WITH an OnLookup trigger:



Assuming that you understand this limitation, let's go to the logic.

On the OnLookup action, you would want to have a variable holding the Item No. Filter (a Text variable). Then you would want a Sales Line variable as well.

You would filter the Sales Line record to the current Sales Header, only for lines of type Item:

SalesLine.SetRange("Document Type", Rec."Document Type");
SalesLine.SetRange("Document No.", Rec."Document No.");
SalesLine.SetRange(Type, SalesLine.Type::Item);

You also would want to filter out the current line, because for the current line, you would want to see the item on the list:

SalesLine.SetFilter("Line No.", '<>%1', Rec."Line No.");

If any Sales Line are found, then you would want to build the Filter text variable based on all the different Item Nos. found on the other lines:

if SalesLine.FindSet() then repeat
  Filter := Filter + '<>' + SalesLine."No." + '&';
until SalesLine.Next() = 0;

This is basically building a Filter in the format:

<>Item1&<>Item2&<>Item3...

Then we want to make sure to eliminate any trailing '&' from the piece of code above

if StrLen(Filter) > 1 then
  Filter := CopyStr(Filter, 1, StrLen(Filter) - 1);

Lastly, we apply the filter we created to an Item record, we open a Lookup page on the Item List with the filtered recordset, and if the lookup is okay, we return this back to the No. field

Item.SetFilter("No.", Filter);
if Page.RunModal(0, Item) = Action::LookupOK then begin
  Text := Item."No.";
  exit(true);
end else
  exit(false);

With this, you should be able to achieve what you are looking for. I tested this on the following Sales Order:



And see how items 1906-S, 1900-S and 1936-S are not showing on my lookup on the No. field:



I hope this gives you some guidance.

There are many ways of possibly implementing this, and I believe the cleanest one would be to create a secondary "No." field to hold all the logic needed to display what you want. This would be the "elegant" solution.

For a quick dirty cheap solution (NOT recommended for a production environment), I was able to do the following:
I extended the Sales Order Subform page to add a custom trigger for event OnAfterGetCurrRecord. On this trigger, I set all items as Sales Blocked = false. Then I ran over all the other Item lines on the same Sales Order and set those Items to Sales Blocked = true.

With this, when I enter the No. field for a blank line, the other items that are already on the Sales Order were marked as Sales Blocked and they do not display on the popup window:



Again, I would not recommend you actually develop this. I just posted this as a source to spark additional ideas.

The biggest challenge with this request, is that the No. field already has a Table Relation set when Line is of type Item, and you wouldn't be able to extend it further (there are more details for this here). The second challenge is that the little popup relies on the Table Relation filters to display data -- it does not take complex filtering done using code. If you don't mind opening up the full look up list, and have that list be filtered accordingly, the solution would be done faster and better... But if your intent is to really narrow down the popup lookup list, that is the biggest limitation here.

The only way I know how to do this:

First you have to scan your database for used media type fields.
(This can be automated using recrefs, or just decide what fields are needed to be kept in tenant media)

Create a buffer table with only guid as primary key.
Insert all MediaId guids that are used from all tables and media fields you pinpointed in previous step.

F.i. while looping DocAtt:
if DocAtt."Document Reference ID".hasvalue then begin
UpgDocAttMediaId.Id := DocAtt."Document Reference ID".MediaId;
UpgDocAttMediaId.insert;
end;

The guids in UpgDocAttMediaId are the primary for
TenantMedia: Record "Tenant Media";

So finally, if not your TenantMedia is found in UpgDocAttMediaId,
TenantMedia can be deleted.

And theoretically, if no tenantmedia is found, the media field should be cleared.

When migrating to SaaS you do want to clean up this table before uploading it all.
Hopefully somebody here found a better way to do this, and is willing to share too🙂.

If you add a page action, but don't assign an object to run and you don't put any code under the button, Navision will think you don't need it yet and not show it yet.

You can just put a comment line under the button instead of the actual code and it should show up on the page. (unless they changed this)