Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- All Categories
- 73 General
- 73 Announcements
- 66.6K Microsoft Dynamics NAV
- 18.7K NAV Three Tier
- 38.4K NAV/Navision Classic Client
- 3.6K Navision Attain
- 2.4K Navision Financials
- 115 Navision DOS
- 854 Navision e-Commerce
- 1K NAV Tips & Tricks
- 772 NAV Dutch speaking only
- 615 NAV Courses, Exams & Certification
- 2K Microsoft Dynamics-Other
- 1.5K Dynamics AX
- 313 Dynamics CRM
- 110 Dynamics GP
- 10 Dynamics SL
- 1.5K Other
- 993 SQL General
- 384 SQL Performance
- 34 SQL Tips & Tricks
- 34 Design Patterns (General & Best Practices)
- Architectural Patterns
- 10 Design Patterns
- 5 Implementation Patterns
- 53 3rd Party Products, Services & Events
- 1.7K General
- 1.1K General Chat
- 1.6K Website
- 79 Testing
- 1.2K Download section
- 23 How Tos section
- 260 Feedback
- 12 NAV TechDays 2013 Sessions
- 13 NAV TechDays 2012 Sessions
Is Report 105 reliable if yes why did they make R120?
Miklos_Hollender
Member Posts: 1,598
I need to put some kind of customer aging into the complicated management reports I generate into Excel. Aged Accounts Receivable is very complicated, and actually I have seen many bugfixes of it in the last few version, so I would rather not emulated that. Is R105 Summary Aging reliable enough? Is it reliable enough for an aging report to emulate this method: sum up det. cust. ledger entry per initial entry due date and that's it? Looks simple enough I wonder if it works. I think it does work for the usual cases (invoice, payment, either applied or not), not sure about perhaps there are some special cases which validate the need for R120.
0