My “2 cents” on the subject: Literary every list type view in Aurena should be able to be Grouped/Sum capable. Why this is not core capability in the framework is somewhat surprising.As an example, many of IFS’ customers use Group/Sum for reconciliation purposes in GL Voucher Row be it Tax Code, Account, Transaction Code.Maybe IFS Cloud solves the problem. Thx @ROXTOBBRI for bringing this to my attention.
@ChrisTin My take on the FX query is that this should have been taken care of transaction currency USD at the ‘nullification’ of the Dr / Cr in accounting currency GBP and hit the PnL accoridingly. Note: Automatic Matching entered IFS in Applicaiton 10.For Application 9 users the Manual Option i available.F1Doc: ...ifsdoc/documentation/en/ProcessModels/Process_Model/AccountMatching.htmMake a Saved Query (Shift + F3) in the Unmatched Transactions part of the window and sort the Amounts by Absolute numbers so you get the Cr with the Dr
If the mixed payment is manually matched you can rollback the matching here:If the reconciliation is done via Bank Statment there is a reversal there too
We managed to get it to work for a single item in the initial test by adding ORDER_ID (c37) with a search criteria in Function Details … we will test 1 order many item and possibly add ORDER_ID_ITEM (c38) as it seems the full MT940 file states each order item - row for row … might get it to work if CAMT.053 option does not materialize
We are rolling out IFS 10 in a German subisdiary and they a highly automated payment flow.As per above discussion, I am facing the same challenge. ISO and SEPA adds IFS Paymnet order reference in the EndToEndID tag but how do we verify that IFS can match that order / or order’s items by using the MT940DE fileformat ?We have tried to replicate their current returnfile with IFS Payment Order but this is not recognized - yet. What we are looking is a way to know for certain the items in the Paymnet Order can be acknowledge by mean of loading the MT940 bank statment into External Payments interface. As the functions seems - for now - not to have an effect on the interpretation.
Maybe not the slickest solution but try:In sheet 2, add the design row with headings for required columns. Then in sheet1 insert a pivot with the columns (i.e. A$:Z$ inorder to get all rows) as source and build the pivot table. Execute report and Pivot in sheet1 should render based on fetched rows in sheet2.
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
