Hi, the observed handling is as intended and correct.
This is to not allow for gaps in the invoices of the service line, it should not be possible to miss to send an invoice.
In the example it seems like it is not wanted to send the earlier invoices? If so it is needed to split the service line, one new line valid for the periods that is not to be invoiced, then set this line as Free of charge, this means attached work tasks will not be invoiced, then to set current line to get” valid from” from where invoicing is to start.
Hi, the observed handling is as intended and correct.
This is to not allow for gaps in the invoices of the service line, it should not be possible to miss to send an invoice.
In the example it seems like it is not wanted to send the earlier invoices? If so it is needed to split the service line, one new line valid for the periods that is not to be invoiced, then set this line as Free of charge, this means attached work tasks will not be invoiced, then to set current line to get” valid from” from where invoicing is to start.
Hi,
You mentioned “it should not be possible to miss to send an invoice”. With this, can you please explain the other scenario I mentioned? When you select two rows and create an invoice, it doesn’t create invoice for the previous non-invoiced lines, but only the selected lines. I checked the code and I can see the system follows two paths based on the number of rows selected. I.e. if one row selected (row count = 1) then method A is used, which creates invoices for all previous lines. If two rows are selected (row count >1) then method B is used, that creates one invoice (one CO) for the selected lines, but none for previous lines.
Cheers
Asanka
For the second scenario, that’s a defect, there has been some similar defect reported, don’t remember on what track. Report this in normal support channels to get it fixed.
/Hans
