After some more investigation we could conclude that this relates to a behavior that was discovered after Go live with APP10 but that we could never “prove” to be a bug. When running the All Parts Cost Calculation the cost buckets were removed for some parts. To get them back, they had to be calculated one by one. To resolve this, a migration job was created to discover parts in cost set 2 that had no cost buckets, and the migjob recalculated the parts one by one. In this example, it seems that the parts that were missing cost buckets had Part Status Inactive. I consider this question resolved. 😊
Hi Björn and thanks a lot for your wise comments. :) Regarding question 1: True, I did not think about that and am not sure that the customer is aware either. Will discuss this further with them, it could also be that I don’t have all the details clear. Then the solution would be to have the Default Backflush setting set to No. Regarding question 2: To my understanding it is since the operators work in various places.I actually looked at the Shop Orders page as an alternative way of working this morning and I cannot see that it shouldn’t work. Thanks for bringing it up.BR /Eva
Hello @NecManaNa ! Just wanted to update you. The problem we experienced is gone in 22R1 so there must have been a bug correction done there. BR /Eva
Thank you @NecManaNa for the update! Please keep me posted on the progress. We will report a case to IFS Support as well since our problems are similar but not identical. I will let you know how it goes. We have discovered that we don’t have this issue when we access the environment via remote desktop, but if we log in directly in a web browser we get a “Bad request” even though the URLs are identical. If we copy the URL and paste it into the web browser via Remote desktop the dialogue opens as expected. Remote desktop is of course not a solution for the customer but added that iformation for transparance. :)Kind RegardsEva
Hello @NecManaNa ! Did you report this to IFS Support and have they diagnosed the issue yet? I have encountered a similar issue in this area which I suspect to be a bug so I am curious about the outcome of your case. Kind RegardsEva
Hello! Thanks both for your replies and for confirming that bug id 160770 is involved. I don’t see that it will be feasible to ask the customer to create a case since IFS Support will require that we as a Partner has recreated this in a Global support environment and in order to do that I need data from UPD7 (or perhaps any data prior to UPD14 will do) where it was possible to have QUAMAN installed but not setting up anything in the Quality Basic Data for site, but I have to recreate it by either adding or copying an Inventory part in an UPD14 environment to trigger the error.All sites in REGIONAL TEST LKP available to me already has a record in Quality Basic Data Site and if I create a new site a record will be created automatically. It will not work to test it in UPD7 As Released either since bug id 160770 is not released in that environment. So I don’t see how I can recreate this in an IFS REF environment. We could of course ask the customer to report it and use screen shots from Bn
Possibility to "freeze" the std cost for sub-assembly when calculating a new parent part. | IFS Community@matt.watters Hope this works!
Thanks a lot for your reply Mats! I have found the Idea section in my version of IFS Community as well, clearly I wasn’t paying attention. I will post an idea there. :) Thanks again!
Thanks a lot @Jeewaka Padmapriya for the info and the documentation. :)
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your 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.
