It says the Bin does not match. It does not matter if I type the bin, copy paste the bin. The default bin in Package Control ID configuration is the bin that I used in this example, same with the warehouse. They match the part.
Support is deep diving into it as they can’t figure it out.
4 things
If it is an existing PCID that has a bin (because a part has been added to it) we can add a part to it.
If I use a UBAQ or something to force a BIN Number onto the PCID it allows the part to be added.
We’ve been using PCID for years now and the process of generating a PCID then adding a part has worked until now.
This is the vanilla Epicor screen. There are no customizations involved and there are no BPMS on the tables.
I hope they figure this out. PCID has always been a big challenge with this ERP and this finding makes it unusable.
We are on the cloud and luckily for us this is still in Pilot.
I always wondered why you could not specify a bin when creating the PCID. The configuration has one but it doesn’t seem to do anything. Help states it sets the bin for empty static PCIDs but does not.
Kinda scary thought…that’s how we build our palletized shipments (1 PCID=1 pallet=1 GS1-128 label) so we can’t do without it. Guess we’ll slow-play our upgrade plans. Good luck.
I’m interested to know how your tests in Pilot or Test work out. Wondering if we are the only ones. I don’t think so. We do not do anything strange when creating PCIDs or adding parts and it has worked until now.
We’re nowhere near testing yet so unfortunately I can’t help. We’re just starting conversations with our consulting company on the 2024.2.X upgrade plans…and this would be a dealbreaker.
I hear you. We are on cloud so will be getting updated when they make us.
I can’t help but think their version of testing was “It compiles”.
It is the only typing that one does during the adding parts to PCID process. How could it be missed? I’m glad I built a workaround but that’s something I did in Pilot to speed up the process
Upgrades, patches and really any code changes scare the hell out of me regardless of platform. If it’s something I worked on, I always wonder if I’d exhausted all possible scenarios…and then beat myself up if I missed something. It’s even worse when it’s out of my control. We had a local mis-deployment issue with our network MSP two weeks ago that we’re only now starting to get clear of. It didn’t affect Kinetic fortunately, just some homegrown DB reporting stuff. And we all remember the CrowdStrike deal.
2024.2.4 here on pilot, our PCID setup/usage is similar, but we utilize dynamic PCIDs for shipping (so, outbound container is checked, also allow parent and allow mixed child pcids unchecked) - i’d do a test with similar parameters and see if it works, maybe the diagnostic there can help support push a fix. Note we are SaaS using the web ui.
We are able to add/remove parts from PCID using Build/Split/Merge, no issues with bin. We ran into problems adding PCID to Packs in 2024.2.1 that was fixed in 2024.2.2.
It worked with a dynamic PCID.
The only difference was the Dynamic Configuration had outbound on (which could not be changed for the static) and Allow multiple serial numbers was off.
I turned it off for the static PCID configuration made a PCID and still got the error.
Same with the new UI
