Multiple copies of RDLC check - collated

rsaritzkyrsaritzky Member Posts: 469
edited 2012-10-19 in NAV Three Tier
Hi all,

I have a user who uses the "Stub-Check-Stub" layout for their A/P checks. They always print 2 copies of their checks - they use precollated paper where the second copy is their "file copy" and is a plain-paper (non-check stock) copy, but has all their preprinted information on it (logo, signature lines, etc).
In NAV50, the entire check layout is replicated in a second footer section, so when the check report prints, it prints 2 copies.

In NAV2009 RDLC, we have only one PageFooter section. And the Stub-check-Stub report consists of a body section for the first "stub" and the body of the check and the second "stub" is in the PageFooter.

I'm skeptical that if I replicate all the fields in the stub-check-stub, that I can assure that the report will page-break at the end of the second stub always at the same place (regardless of the number of paid items on the check.) I am willing to try it, but just asking if anyone has tried this before (i.e. having an 18-inch long footer and expecting it to break after 7.33 inches every time.

Note that this is a little bit different from the several posts on multi-copy documents here, e.g. how invoices work. Adding a "CopyLoop" dataitem could potentially work, although with a little extra coding (since the standard check report actually writes records to the Check Ledger Entry table in the last dataitem - so that would have to happen only once). I guess that approach is also an option.

Thx

Another idea is to try to "control" or pass information to the Windows Printer dialog and force the standard "Number of Copies" value to 2 - has anyone tried that in an RDLC report?

Thx
Ron

Comments

  • clauslclausl Member Posts: 455
    Hint1! Check with Microsoft support in USA for a "Stub-Check-Stub" RDLC layout report. They have done this, but why they don't share I don't know.
    Hint2! Ask to speak to Mr. Haman which is an expert these kind of reports.

    /Claus Lundstrøm
    Claus Lundstrøm | MVP | Senior Product Manager | Continia.com
    I'm blogging here:http://mibuso.com/blogs/clausl and used to blog here: http://blogs.msdn.com/nav
    I'm also offering RDLC Report Training, ping me if you are interested. Thanks to the 700 NAV developers that have now already been at my training. You know you can always call if you have any RDLC report issues :-)
  • rsaritzkyrsaritzky Member Posts: 469
    clausl wrote:
    Hint1! Check with Microsoft support in USA for a "Stub-Check-Stub" RDLC layout report. They have done this, but why they don't share I don't know.
    Hint2! Ask to speak to Mr. Haman which is an expert these kind of reports.
    /Claus Lundstrøm

    Claus:

    The Stub-Check-Stub RDLC layout is a standard object in NAV for North America - that is the version I am trying to adapt to print 2 copies. The RDLC layout uses the "Body" (line details) for the first stub and the "Page Footer" for the check and the second stub. The way the dataitems are used in the report, the "CopyLoop" technique used in the Sales Invoice report for example, doesn't work - at least not easily. The problem is that while the checks are printing, it doesn't know if the page you're printing right now is the first "void" stub-only page or the last page (where the "official" check is printed). As it processes each line, it marks it as "Check Printed", then refilters the Payment Journal Lines to find the next line. When it prints a page, it also creates a Check Ledger Entry record. In order to print a second page that is a duplicate of the first, the logic would have to be modified to un-do the updates to the Payment Journal lines and to bypass inserting a Check Ledger Entry record. While this may be possible, this is a substantial modification and frankly, I'd just start from scratch and use a different technique probably. The NAV50 version of the report uses 2 dataitem footers - I'd probably take that approach - move the Page Footer to a Group Footer and have a second Group footer that duplicated the same fields. That seems like a lot of work just to print 2 copies automatically.

    Thanks for the reply
    Ron
Sign In or Register to comment.