HELP!! Aged Accounts Receivable/Payable

andrewcoper

Does anyone know what version of reports 120 and 322 work on which 4.0 service pack with which hotfix, have looked through the knowledge base and am thoroughly confused. We tried to run the SP3 report on a SP1 DB but this was taking hours to run, albeit in a fairly large DB. There seems to be numerous hot fix's, not all of them particularly clear as to when they should be applied.

Andrew

girish.joshi

No idea.

Why don' t you just use the right version of the report with the right database?

What bug do you have in your SP1 report?

idiot

4.01 Aged Accounts Receivable/Payables have bugs in relation to the same version database.
The totals are incorrect.
We have changed to 4.03 reports.

andrewcoper

There are several hot fix's on the website, but they are unclear as to which version they do or don't apply to. There is a bug with SP1 which means that entries which are not due do not show. There is also a bug whereby detailed ledger entries do not exist for ledger entries where the DB has been updated from an older version. We have applied both to version 3 and the report now takes hours to run. Does anyone have a definitive answer as to which hot fix's should be applied to which version.

Thanks Andrew

andrewcoper

Does anyone have a copy of report 120 and 322 for 4.0 which they know is correct and reconciles with the G/L, which they could e mail to me.

Andrew

Miklos_Hollender

Hello Andrew,

greetings from down the road, from Wolverhampton :-) Are you working at a solution center or an end-user?

What we've done is taken the SP2 or SP3 report and fixed this stupid bug introduced in SP2 in the first Cust. Ledger Entry - OnAfterGetRecord:

//MH 031106
//CustLedgEntry.SETRANGE("Closed by Entry No.","Closed by Entry No.");
CustLedgEntry.SETRANGE("Entry No.","Closed by Entry No.");

Basically it means reverting back to SP1 functionality. Which is interesting because SP1 didn't work correctly either, so I think that there might be some more subtle fixes in SP2/3 besides this bugbear. It looks like a good combination as nobody ever complained afterwards. (I wonder what were they thinking - this bug meant all entries that are not applied yet (0) are applied to each other. And then you get figures higher than the US state debt )