Removing validation logic for Special Order

knm · 2012-01-16

Hi,

I'm currently trying to figure out how I can manage to create the Purchase Order out of Sales Order without having to entering duplicate information.

And I'm trying to focus how I can utilize the Special Order.
I understood the basic idea that using Special Order I can create the Purchase Order using the Requisition Worksheet, and this is good.

But because I'm trying to integrate special operation in NAV, I'm having difficulty using this method.
The special operation that I mentioned below is being practiced to account for "In-Transit" inventory balances.

*********************
1) Create Sales Order
2) Create Purchase Order
3) Receive the items to "In-Transit" location
4) Transfer items from "In-Transit" to "Physical Warehouse"
5) Shipout Items to customer.
*********************

So the issue I'm having is at step 3), where I'm receiving the item to an "In-Transit" location.
Since the original Sales Order is created to ship from the "Physical Warehouse" location, on the Purchase Order side, I cannot change the 'Location Code', due to the link with Sales.

And then after reviewing the code behind Purchase Line, I was wondering if there is an issue in commenting out the following code, which is checking whether the Purchase Line is "Special Order", or not.

Location Code - OnValidate()
TestStatusOpen;
...
...
IF "Special Order" THEN
  ERROR(
    Text001,
    FIELDCAPTION("Location Code"),"Special Order Sales No.");
...
...

I've done some testing after commenting out this code, and then changing the location code of Special Order, and haven't encountered any issues, but I wanted to get any information on the potential risks that I may face.

Thank you.

Kenji

rhpnt · 2012-01-17

The functionality you are trying to "integrate" makes no sense, especially step 3. BUT, if you (or your company) insist on receiving goods to a "transit" location simply create another one with that name but with "Use As In-Transit" := FALSE.

knm · 2012-01-17

Hi rhpnt,

Thank you so much for your response.
And sorry for the lack of details. Yes, for step 3, I'm using an Location Code where "Use As In-Transit" := FALSE.

That being said, would you know how the change that I mentioned (removing Location Code validation for Special Order) affects the overall integrity of the data that is created?

Thank you!

rhpnt · 2012-01-17

I would rather suggest that your sales staff puts the "In transit" location in their sales orders in order for special purchase orders to work. Are you using any warehouse functionality?

rhpnt · 2012-01-17

Another question - What do you mean by that?

kenji wrote:

The special operation that I mentioned below is being practiced to account for "In-Transit" inventory balances.

knm · 2012-01-17

Let's say I ordered 1000KG @ $10.00 of an item.
The shipment from vendor comes in 2 separate shipments of 400KG and 600KG.

400KG was shipped on 1/10/12, and was received on 2/10/12.
And 600 KG was shipped on 1/25/12 and was received on 2/25/12.

The "Intransit" location will be used to capture the inventory qty and value that are still in transit from Vendor to the warehouse.
So when I check for the inventory balance as of 2/15/12, the inventory balance should be;

Intransit Location => 600KG @ $10.00
Physical Location => 400KG @ $10.00

This is an example of import procedure where the shipment takes a month to get to the warehouse, and shipped inventory becomes buyer's responsibility after shipment.

rhpnt · 2012-01-17

You can't receive any goods until they've really arrived at the location. What do you do if the shipment gets lost along the way? The information that the goods are on their way is given by various date fields in the PO lines. They also control the item availability per period which your sales staff should use to see when the item is due to arrive.

I really have my doubts that an audit would approve your scenario.

knm · 2012-01-17

Thank you for your concern, for any correction entries in NAV, I was thinking of using Credit Memo or whatever method available. I'll think of the solution, taking your suggestion into account.

But going back to my main question, it is possible to remove the validation logic on Purchase Line Location Code for Special Order.

Do you think it would be a problem?

Thank you.

rhpnt · 2012-01-17

kenji wrote:

But going back to my main question, it is possible to remove the validation logic on Purchase Line Location Code for Special Order.

Yes

kenji wrote:

Do you think it would be a problem?

Yes

knm · 2012-01-17

I understand that, in general, commenting out the original code is always not a good idea, but any specific reason why in this case would be a problem, if you have one?

Alex_Chow · 2012-01-17

Why are you using special orders to do this?

The proper way would be to create a location and receive it into that location. Then use transfer orders.

knm · 2012-01-17

Alex,

Thanks for your feedback.

Following is the scenario that I was thinking.

*******************
1) Create Special Sales Order, using Location Code "WH"
2) Using Requisite Worksheet, create Purchase Order.
=> This automatically assign the Location Code "WH" on the PO side.
3) On PO, change Location Code from "WH" to "MIT" (the Location used to track intransit item)
4) Receive to "MIT" location
5) Transfer from "MIT" to "WH"
6) Ship from "WH" to Customer
*******************

So if I follow your suggestion, I will be receiving to "WH" and then transferring to "MIT" and then transferring back to "WH", which is too many steps for one single transaction.

That is on the above step #3, I wanted to change the Location Code from "WH" to "MIT".

Thank you.

Alex_Chow · 2012-01-17

So don't use the transfer order. Use the Item Reclass journal.

rhpnt · 2012-01-18

Look kenji,

you are trying to force something into NAV that doesn't fit! Your theory of tracking and receiving goods is simply wrong and cannot be implemented into NAV in such way. Period. Sure, breaking apart the special orders functionality will bring you one step closer to your idea but also to lots of problems later.

dans · 2012-01-18

any reason why you really need to use special order ?

knm · 2012-01-18

dans,

The reason why I want to use Special Order, is because I can use the "Get Sales Order" function available on the Requisition Worksheet. Using that I can create one PO per one Special SO.

Since it is important to specify which SO I'm using to create the PO, I couldn't think of other solution than using the "Special Order".

Thank you.

Alex_Chow · 2012-01-18

If you've already made up your mind, then do it.

I'm not totally sure why you're not involving your NAV partner as part of your design. They would definitely provide insights and alternatives to your business problem.

knm · 2012-01-18

Alex,
It's not that I've already made up my mind. I wanted to get an insight on whether the change I described is reasonable, and if exists, then any other workarounds.
So far I haven't received any comments on my original question, but I guess that's because nobody really made such change before, so I guess I'll be doing more testing to see how this goes.
Thank you.

Alex_Chow · 2012-01-18

knm wrote:

Alex,
It's not that I've already made up my mind. I wanted to get an insight on whether the change I described is reasonable, and if exists, then any other workarounds.
So far I haven't received any comments on my original question, but I guess that's because nobody really made such change before, so I guess I'll be doing more testing to see how this goes.
Thank you.

There's a reason why nobody does it.

Your requirement is not so strange that no other company that uses NAV hasn't encountered before. In fact, I'm going as far as to say, there's nothing going on in your company that most experienced solution centers has not seen before.

Again, I still don't understand why you're not involving your NAV partner on this. They do this for a living and should have a solution or an alternative.

DenSter · 2012-01-18

Listen to Alex and get your partner involved. Get an experienced consultant into your office and let them help you figure out how to address this. Doing your own consulting may sound like a good idea, but you can actually do a lot of damage to your system if you don't know what you're doing.

Fixing a mess is MUCH more expensive than getting help right now.

Savatage · 2012-01-18

We use special orders probably in an unusuall way also.

Not sure about removing validation. We have slight adjusted Get Sales Order Report.

But I'm not really following you on this post.

Are you saying your method would work fine if it wasn't for the two locations?

Alex_Chow · 2012-01-19

Of course... we lost him after we suggested something he didn't want to hear.

knm · 2012-01-19

I'm not constantly monitoring the website, so couldn't come back. So don't worry, I'm not lost anywhere.

Savatage,

You mentioned;

Are you saying your method would work fine if it wasn't for the two locations?

What do you mean by the "two locations"?

I'm saying my method would work if I remove the "Location Code", which then the system lets me change the Location Code of PO to something different than the one assigned on SO.

Savatage · 2012-01-19

knm wrote:

What do you mean by the "two locations"?

4) Transfer items from "In-Transit" to "Physical Warehouse"

These are two locations in you system isn't it?

knm · 2012-01-19

Yes, the "In-Transit" and "Physical Warehouse" are 2 Locations setup in the system. (both of which are "Use As In-Transit := FALSE")

dans · 2012-01-20

I'm not sure about removing the validation. If you want to remove the validation, make sure you do lots of test to make sure nothing goes wrong later.

For your case, I suggest changing the way you link between SO and PO, instead of using the standard Special Order and removing the validation logic. There might be a reason why the validation is there in the beginning.

DenSter · 2012-01-20

dans wrote:

For your case, I suggest changing the way you link between SO and PO, instead of using the standard Special Order and removing the validation logic. There might be a reason why the validation is there in the beginning.

Best advice yet :thumbsup:

knm · 2012-01-20

dans,

OK, will do more testing, and see if I bump into any issues.
And will also consider what kind of customization will best fit the requirements.

Thank you.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

Removing validation logic for Special Order

Comments