@Hashmit After processing the PR (receiving the materials), IMO not allowing to delete the PR line should be the correct behavior. Otherwise there is no connection afterwards so this should be intentional. Dont you agree?

Hi @Buddhika Kurera ,

I understand your point about maintaining connections for cost tracking. However, since we have cancelled both the receipt and the PO, it seems unnecessary to keep the link connections. 

I am not denying your point just looking for a logical way why it is doing that.
and at the later stage of the work order system is asking me to create PO anyhow, even If I do not want to go ahead with PR.
 

@Hashmit When a PO is processed, it creates financial transactions. When cancelling the receipt, those transactions are reversed, not removed. Therefore, even though you try to reverse the results, the system keeps some history. Since the PR - PO - Receipt are part of the transaction chain, the system is not allowing the deletion of any object. I think that is what is behind the design consideration.

On the other hand, I can understand your PoV. Here by cancelling the PO Receipt you are trying to rectify something, it is different to material return (probably nothing has been received, it was a mistake and you are trying to clean the system by removing the related objects). Am I correct?

@Buddhika Kurera yes correct 

@Hashmit Thanks for the confirmation.

Since transactions are reserved but no removed, it is not possible to remove any object in the chain, as per the design.

However I also agree with you, because you cancel the receipt because it is not relevant. Otherwise you would be using Material Return. When cancelled, it is like undoing, everything should be able to undo. One can argue otherwise too. So this is how it was designed rather than a functional requirement.

When it comes to data, it is better to keep those rather than removing completely. So this is the safer approach. Reversing than removing.

Lets see what others think :)