Hi, 

Look at the invoice. The invoice has two different balances. One for the invoice currency and the other for the accounting currency. Both are important.   

Please review the difference and send print screen. 

I’m using posting proposal supplier invoice solution - so your screen may look different. The posoting proposal screens will have the same concept to show the balance in the different currencies. 

Best regards, 

Thomas

Hi,

First of all thanks for you reply. As I  mentioned, at balance level there is no difference is only at accounting currency:

Following the help and documentation from IFS, in this case, when even the system allows you to authorize the invoice, the system should be able to post it the invoice with IP28, shouldn’t it?

Kind regards.

Hi,
Yes, you are right that IP28 should trigger in case of unbalance issue below company-defined limit.

But please check carefully posting lines created in Cost Postings tab of your posting proposal - make sure receipt accrual reversals (non-inventory or subcontract matching) are created correctly. Perhaps some other issue is there. I have seen such cases in our environment.

In general I do not like automatic balancing of vouchers, even in case of small m non-material amounts, and rather suggest users to balance proposal by manual posting line (e.g. in your case 0 amount in currency, .01 in accounting currency)

I do not know if this is the case but the invoice is related to an Inventory Part Purchase order. I mean, Finance can balance the invoice but I would expect to IP28 be triggered under these circumstances.

Kind regards.

Hi, 

Thanks for the print screen, the difference is .01 obviously less than the .5 setting you have for the allowed difference. I tested a Supplier invoice with purchase order and had to force a difference by entering manual posting lines. That may be different from your exact test case.   I can also see differences in the company screen.  I did not see the IFS version noted in the posting. I was reviewing apps 10. 

In my tests the IP28 is triggered.   

It’s probably best to log a call center case reporting the issue. I was unable to duplicate the issue.  That would imply a code difference or test difference. 

In your environment would a non po invoice work (create the IP28)?   

By any chance is the PO related to an inventory part where the cost is set to weighted average using invoice consideration set as transaction based?   If so, that may be a reason for the no IP28 posting.  

If a non-po invoice creates the IP28, then look to the part(s) on the PO, and review the costing.  I’m including a print screen of the part set up I’m referring to. 

When invoice consideration is set to transaction based,  invoice PPV is sent back to the inventory value and previous transactions.  A very good deal of logic was created for this, and the option does have implications. That’s why I’m interested if the related PO lines may be subject to this. 

Best regards, 

Thomas

Yes, in fact the Purchase Order is inventory related with Transaction Based configuration. This is affecting to the rounding? If it so, how we can have something “automatic” for these cents differences?

Thanks and kind regards,

Endika.

Hi, 

Unfortunately when doing the “transaction based” option certain functions are no longer automated.  The code for the transaction based invoice consideration is very sophisticated and automated handling of some features is not supported.  

From a user standpoint I don’t have any settings that can allow full automation of these features. 

You can log a call, center case, and see if R&D is able to do a correction.  

Best regards, 

Thomas