Unanswered questions

Following a go live onto IFS Apps 10 for a part of our business that uses composite (mixed goods) tax codes we are experiencing issues with our Tax Proposal process.  Due to the number of tax codes set up (approx 2000 codes ranging from UK0000 to UK2000) the standard UK Vat Return template (S089) was amended to use selection based on Tax Subgroups.Up until this point the tax proposal was completing and capturing all tax transactions for the period specified.Since this change and the increased number of transactions the tax proposal includes transactions up to UK0567 and then stops.This leaves all other tax transactions unconnected to a tax proposal.  This happens regardless of the number of transactions (which varies from 58,000 to 143,000 per month).  We are currently running monthly tax proposals. This stop at the same tax code has happened consistently for several months.We have checked:Tax codes are mapped to the relevant tax subgroups (Tax template field control) Tax codes are map

We have a remote installation of ICAM and are trying download the docker images from jFrog using the air-gapped documentation and loading them into our local jFrog Repository (JCR). We’ve had no issue with helm charts so I’ll exclude them here. We are using the download.sh and upload.sh from the 26.1.4 binaries that we downloaded from our Build Place. The air-gapped linux box has Docker version 29.8.2. The first few images load fine into the JCR then we are running into an error with the upload.sh on one of the images:/docker/longhornio/csi-snapshotter:v8.3.0-20250826 was found but does not provide the specified platformIf I delete the image locally, I get the same error on the csi-resizer image. It has been suggested that we downgrade Docker to version 28. Has anyone run into the issue above and did downgrading resolve it? Any other suggestions?

Dear @Mathias Dahl,I’m reaching out to you directly, as I believe you are the most knowledgeable person to answer this. We have a customer running on IFS 10 UPD10 on Microsoft Azure Cloud (in their own subscription, not in IFS Managed Cloud). They are using the IFS Docman functionality extensively, with a large number of documents saved on an FTP server.They are planning to upgrade to IFS Cloud (possibly 24R2 or later), and there’s a chance the installation will take place in Oracle Cloud. As we know, IFS no longer supports FTP as a repository, but IFS Cloud currently supports "File Storage" using an SMB (Server Message Block) share to store files.My questions are: Can we use the Cloud File Storage Migration Tool to migrate files from IFS 10 (from the FTP server) to IFS Cloud (SMB share)? Note: I read about the limited support for this tool. However, I would like to know your opinion on whether we can rely on this tool, or if there is a better alternative. For example, could we copy th

How can I subscribe to the Customer Office Newsletter?

You are not allowed to enter Project Time/Cost Reporting for Employee on project activity of company IFS CloudSupervisor (company A) is reporting time for an employee (company B) . both have project access and are team members for the project Supervisor receives error when saving time registrationYou are not allowed to enter Project Time/Cost Reporting for Employee on project activity of company IFS Cloud

Hi All,Last year there was mention that Android 16 was NOT certified to run Astea Mobile.Is there any update as to when it will be certified to run on Android 16??We have contractors buying new phones and then finding that they cannot use Astea Mobile on it, as it comes up with a message saying that the app was designed  for an older version of android. Cheersmark.

Is it possible to grant access to develop and view quick reports only, without granting the FND_ADMIN permission set?There is a standard permission set called FND_QUICK_REPORTS. If i grant only this to a user, i do not get access to the quick reports. How can we grant access to a user to use quick reports, without granting access to FND_ADMIN

Dear community,Is there a possibility to share the supplier evaluation results with the evaluated supplier ? Or any possibilities we can achieve this ?Thank you

Hi there.I enter a supplier code in Create Order Proposal (in this case supplier 10071)......then press finish. The results I get do thou include parts parts not from this supplier.Part 11318 has Primary supplier 10533.Part 11993 has no primary supplier.Do you have any ideas why I get results from other suppliers?

Hi,We are currently testing site-to-site shipments in IFS Cloud 26R1.We would like to confirm the standard behavior regarding Handling Units during Incoming Dispatch Advice receipt. Current scenario:Goods are shipped from Site A with Handling Units. An Incoming Dispatch Advice is created on Site B. Receipt is performed from Incoming Dispatch Advice Lines. The inventory is received together with the original Handling Unit structure and Handling Unit IDs from Site A.Based on our testing, the receiving site inherits the same Handling Unit IDs that were created on the shipping site.We would like to confirm whether this behavior is standard by design. In addition, we would like to know the following:Is inheriting the original Handling Unit IDs during Incoming Dispatch Advice receipt the standard behavior in IFS Cloud? Is there any standard functionality, parameter, receive case, or configuration that allows receipt without retaining the original Handling Unit IDs? Is there any option such a

How to enable turn on 

Hello ,As part of the France e-invoicing requirements, invoices may be received with the Billing Framework (BT-23) set to one of the following values:B2 – Goods Invoice Already Paid S2 – Services Invoice Already Paid M2 – Mixed Invoice Already PaidWhen any of these values are used for BT-23, the PrepaidAmount must be equal to the total invoice amount, and the Open Amount on the invoice in IFS should be 0, based on the following requirements:BT-112 (Invoice Total Amount Including VAT) = Total Invoice Amount (TaxInclusiveAmount) BT-113 (Amount Already Paid) = Total Invoice Amount (PrepaidAmount) BT-115 (Net Amount Due) = 0 (PayableAmount)Currently, when the Billing Framework is received as B2, S2, or M2, the PrepaidAmount tag is populated with the invoice amount. However, during processing in IFS External Supplier Invoices, invoice validation fails with the error:"Net amount is not equal to the installment open amount."As a result, invoices that have already been paid cannot be successfu

Hello Everyone,We have identified a potential issue with generation for Project e-invoices.According to Polish VAT/KSeF requirements, the exchange rate reported in the XML should be the VAT Exchange Rate (stored as Tax Currency Rate in IFS). However, the current XML generation process appears to populate the Currency Rate from the invoice rather than the Tax Currency Rate.Observed Behavior:XML generated for Project Invoices contains the standard Currency Rate. The Tax Currency Rate is available in IFS but is not being used in the XML. This may result in KSeF submissions that do not align with Polish VAT reporting requirements.Expected Behavior:The KSeF XML should report the Tax Currency Rate (VAT Exchange Rate) instead of the standard Currency Rate.Has anyone encountered a similar situation when generating KSeF XML for Project Invoices? If so:Is the current behavior expected? Are there any known fixes, localizations, or configuration settings available? Has anyone implemented a workaro

Hello Everyone,We're experiencing an issue related to split payments and recalculation for supplier e-invoice creationWhen a split payment is created manually and a recalculation is subsequently triggered, the system automatically overrides the manually defined payment terms. As a result, the invoice due dates are recalculated and no longer align with the expected payment terms from either the supplier master data or the purchase order.Has anyone encountered a similar scenario? Is this the expected system behavior, or could it be a product limitation/defect?We would appreciate insights on:How other customers are handling split payments in such cases. Any recommended configuration or workaround. Whether there are known fixes or best practices to prevent payment terms from being overwritten during recalculation.Thank you in advance for your feedback and experiences.

Hello,We have identified a scenario related to supplier invoices created through the E-Invoicing process.When an invoice is created from an external supplier invoice for e-invoicing, there is currently no possibility to enter or maintain the Payment Method and Payment Address on the resulting invoice.In addition, we have observed that one-time supplier information entered during the e-invoicing process is not carried over to the corresponding Manual Supplier Invoice created in the system.As a result:One-time supplier details entered in the incoming supplier invoice are not populated in the Manual Supplier Invoice. The one-time payment information is not reflected in the Installment Plan or Discount information. There is no option to enter or update the Payment Method and Payment Address after the invoice is created.This creates a business issue as the supplier invoice cannot be processed for payment using the required payment details.Do we have any experience with other customers proce

Does anyone transmit the 753 EDI document - Ready to Ship out of IFS?  If so - how are you setting it up and triggering the generation?

Hello,As per France e-invoicing requirements, a credit invoice must include a reference to the original invoice being credited.For project-related customer orders, creating a credit invoice directly from the original invoice correctly populates the original invoice reference and updates the Actual Revenue on the project. However, this approach does not impact the Planned Revenue.As the system does not allow the creation of customer order lines with negative quantities or amounts, the current process is to create a charge with a negative amount and associate it with a project-linked order line having a zero amount. This allows the Planned Revenue on the project to be adjusted correctly.When a credit invoice is generated using this approach, the credit invoice does not automatically retrieve the reference to the original invoice being credited. In addition, there is currently available field which is not getting updated automatically or fields are not non editable for manual action.From

Hello,As part of France e-invoicing requirements, a credit invoice must contain a reference to the original invoice being credited.We have identified a scenario with AFP-based invoicing (Sales Contract) where the original invoice reference is not always carried over to the generated credit invoice.Project invoices created from AFPs are based on the certified values entered in the AFP. We have observed that when a credit invoice is created directly against the most recent AFP invoice, the original invoice reference is correctly populated on the credit invoice.However, if a line has already been invoiced through a previous AFP and a new AFP is later created to generate a credit invoice for that same line, the generated credit invoice does not retrieve the reference of the original invoice being credited.Additionally, we could not find any field or functionality that allows users to manually enter or update the original invoice reference on the credit invoice.From a France e-invoicing com

Hello, As part of the France e-invoicing requirements, when payment has already been received and the invoice is issued subsequently, the Billing Framework (BT-23) must be set to one of the following values: B2 – Goods Invoice Already Paid S2 – Services Invoice Already Paid M2 – Mixed Invoice Already Paid  When any of these values are used for BT-23, the PrepaidAmount must be equal to the total invoice amount. Consequently: BT-112 (Invoice Total Amount Including VAT) = Total Invoice Amount BT-113 (Amount Already Paid) = Total Invoice Amount BT-115 (Net Amount Due) = 0  Currently, when the Billing Framework is set to B2, S2, or M2, the PrepaidAmount tag is not populated and is transmitted as empty in the generated invoice XML.As a result, the invoice validation fails and the document is rejected by “e-invoice solution platform” with the following validation rule:If the billing framework (BT-23) is B2, S2, or M2, then the amount already paid (BT-113) must be equal to the total amount inc

Hello,The Lifecycle Status field is expected to display value in the format <Status Code>-<Status Code Description>, while any additional comments should be captured separately in the Lifecycle Comment field.However, the current behavior is different. The status code is not displayed, and the Lifecycle Status field instead shows <Status Code Description>-<Comments>.For example, the current output is:Lifecycle Status: Accepted - TEST CommentThe expected output is:Lifecycle Status: 205-AcceptedLifecycle Comment: TEST CommentThis behavior is observed for all invoice types, including Instant Invoice, Project Invoice, and Customer Order Invoice on IFS Cloud 25.2.5.The current behavior does not align with the intended functionality of the Lifecycle Status field, as the status code is not displayed and comments are merged into the status value instead of being stored in the dedicated Lifecycle Comment field. Any insights, recommendations, or experiences from clients wh

An IT department representative from one of our IFS Cloud-implementing customers is interested in Maintenance Planning and Scheduling (MPS). They are aware that MPS is the successor to the Maintenance Planning Board (MPB). Does anyone know of any good resources to explain MPS to this person?

Hello community, We are in IFS Cloud 24R2 and  we would like to upgrade to 25r2 Su9. I have a problem this yhe adjusted demand in forecast demand.The quantity in “adjusted demand” is changed by a process. I can't figure out why this happens or how to prevent it.I get the impression that these changes are related to the qualification task. Thanks for your help.

Hi, IFS Cloud 25R2The company purchases components from the supplier in boxes. The warehouse also delivers the components to the production floor in boxes. However, the components are issued to the shop order in pieces. Ideally, each box should contain 100 pcs only.Please note that these items are very small in size but have significant value. We currently have a few scenarios that need to be addressed: Issuing to the Shop Order Components should be issued to the shop order in pieces. Returning Unconsumed Components At times, a full box of 100 pcs is not consumed. In such cases, the remaining pieces need to be returned to the warehouse. For example, if 80 pcs are consumed, the remaining 20 pcs should be returned to the warehouse. Shop Orders Requiring Only a Small Quantity For certain shop orders, only a small quantity, such as 10 pcs, may be required. However, we currently need to bring one full box from the warehouse to the production floor and then handle the remaining quantity

HiIs there a way to monitor user activity or inactivity in the Self-Service Portal and/or the assyst Agent Portal to better determine the appropriate session length in assyst, or to identify which users could have their sessions safely terminated?This is primarily a question regarding Self-Service, as the Self-Service Portal and Agent Portal share the same session length configuration. A business requirement for longer agent sessions on our end result in end-user licences being held for considerably longer than necessary, or so it is believed.Our current approach relies on tracking actions performed by agents or end users. However, this does not necessarily reflect actual user activity, as there are many legitimate use cases where a user remains active without generating tracked actions, such as browsing the portal or reading knowledge articles or filling a complex self-service form. Therefore, action-based monitoring may not accurately indicate whether a session is truly active or ina

Hello IFS Community.  Can anyone point me in the right direction on this error we have?  .’Arguments used to execute current operation are not allowed’  If the employee tries to book time to a project he gets the error.  If I, as a full IFS user book the same time to the project for the same employee i can do so..   The employee was able to book time ok, during week 1 but since then not.  I have check the project, resource group etc etc Thank you !