Skip to main content

We have done a large expiry of pricing rules specific to one client. The update was completed via SQL and did not happen organically within FSM.

 

Screenshot showing an expired price (note the “Active flag” remains this seems to have no impact when prices are increased )

 

 

This is the pricing history for the same item (Part Pricing Rule 999)

 

My question is - Why is it choosing an expired pricing rule (with a higher precedence) over a non expired pricing rule with a lower precedence? Even flipping between two on a single order:

 

 My hunch is the first was driven by a quote, and the second added manually, but this does still not explain the second line (SEQ: 911288) using an expired rule. 

 

Any thoughts appreciated 

Self resolution: The quote was created prior to the pricing change, then flipped to a request after. We had applied a discount to the place as the alternative to managing the initial pricing rules. When it was flipped the already discount price, had the place discount applied. 

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings