IFS Solutions

We are currently trying to use the order cover time on a manufactured part by setting it to Planning Method G. We want the demand as seen on MS Level 1 to be assessed over the cover time and used to generate shop order requisitions for the demand within the order cover time. However, Planning Method G only appears to work for Purchased Parts. Has anyone managed to get this work for manufactured parts?

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

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

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

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

Version 24.1.22 I saw an older post asking if there was a way to connect multiple documents to an object, which was eventually implemented as a feature.  I was curious if there was a similar feature that allowed users to connect multiple Objects, like Inventory Parts, to a Change Request. If so, was this also implemented in 24R2, or a later version?

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

Hican someone let me know when UPD31 will be released for app10 please? thanksGary 

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?

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

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.

Hello our wonderful IFS Community :)We’re running IFS Cloud 24R1, applying SU20 to a pilot instance for evaluation (going from SU9). We’ve encountered an issue when receiving goods off of a Shop Order, complaining that an Expiration Date is mandatory. I’ve limited things down to something that appears correct in the SU9 version of the API INVENTORY_PART_IN_STOCK_API and a variable check_mandatory_expire_date_ that is referenced in the Check_Insert__ / Check_Common__ procedures.Here’s a sample of the check_mandatory_expire_date_ being set (as opposed to the DEFAULT value for the parameter taking place. Anyone encounter an issue like this when going to SU20? Error message:ORA-20124: Error.NULLVALUE: Field [EXPIRATION_DATE] is mandatory for Inventory Part In Stock and requires a value.INVENTORY_PART_IN_STOCK_API package body snippet:-- Bug SCZ-27258, Start   check_mandatory_expire_date_   BOOLEAN := TRUE;   -- Bug SCZ-27258, EndMany thanks, and feel free to let me know if you’d like addit

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

 Incorrect Visualization of Night Shift Time Registrations in IFS Cloud

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 !   

Look specifically at Fault Type, Cause and Performed Action. Not sure what settings makes these fields mandatory or not? Thanks