8.03.403 Character01 vs UserChar1 user fields

Got it Calvin.

We are doing something similar (using ud character fields) to enable internal process notes to be shared between sales, production control and shipping. (Info not cleanly definable via some combo of ud number, character or checkbox fields.)

That allows us to utilize memos only for things that appear on customer communication documents.

Thanks

Rob Brown

Calvin Krusen <ckrusen@...> wrote:
Thanks Robert.

We are still in the process of "standardizing" our business practices (with
respect to the ERP system usage). So there is a lot of historical data that
wouldn't conform to the requirements of the Purchased Direct method.

The data in my V4.4 system was only ever meant as a reference, and might
contain values like "SO 2080123", "Order 2070321", "Orders 2071234 &
2071239", "SHOP SUPPLIES", etc. Going forward, we might look into the
Purchased Direct method, but we'd like to see the "Purchased For" notes from
the older system. Obviously the Purchased Direct field is going to require
an existing work order. That would prevent us from populating the purch.
dir. field with our "notes".

Thanks again,

Calvin K

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Robert Brown
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:11 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] 8.03.403 Character01 vs UserChar1 user fields

What you are trying to do already exists natively in 403: Making the Parts
Purchased Direct links them to the Sales Order (or a Job generating the
requirement).

We aren't planning to use the capability (at least as of now) so I'm fuzzy
on whether Purchased Direct Parts have any forced limits such as 1 PO Line
per Requirement (versus 1 PO line linked to multiple requirements - as Parts
ordered via a Job are capable of).

If it is a strict (interface forced - not db design limited) 1:1
relationship and that is impractical for you (as I suspect it might be for
us), poke around in the data table definitions to see if you can (perhaps)
still utilize the existing table fields displaying the linked demand
order(s) and make them visible on whatever forms and reports are appropriate
for your process.

As to the other question: Highly unlikely Epicor would ever 'hijack' a ud
field for their own purposes when they can (and do) simply extend the db
tables to add native fields as needed.

Calvin Krusen <ckrusen@... <mailto:ckrusen%40comcast.net> > wrote:
We want to add a text field to the PO Header to store the sales order
number the purchase is for. Is there any difference between
POHeader.Character01 and POHeader UserChar1 fields?

Does Epicor ever "steal" the user fields for future data?

Thanks,

Calvin

---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
We want to add a text field to the PO Header to store the sales order
number the purchase is for. Is there any difference between
POHeader.Character01 and POHeader UserChar1 fields?

Does Epicor ever "steal" the user fields for future data?

Thanks,

Calvin
Calvin -



You can store the information in either field. They are both available in
future versions of Vantage.



HTH,

Calvin



From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Calvin Krusen
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:37 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] 8.03.403 Character01 vs UserChar1 user fields



We want to add a text field to the PO Header to store the sales order
number the purchase is for. Is there any difference between
POHeader.Character01 and POHeader UserChar1 fields?

Does Epicor ever "steal" the user fields for future data?

Thanks,

Calvin





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks Calvin D.

Now, is there any way to mass populate the UserChar1 field?

We just made the leap from Vista 4.41 to 8.03.403, and lost a lot of
the customizations. Most were poorly implemented, so no big deal on
the actual customizations, but we'd like to get the user defined
data into V8.03, just for historical purposes.

The data is in the user defined table UHPOHD of my old V4.4 system.
I'm just looking to copy the uhpohd.toord(a 20 character field) to
the POHeader.UserChar1 field of the appropriate record(when
uhpohd.topo = POHeader.PONum).

I only need to do this once, so I'm not looking to get too fancy
(although knowing how to do it on the fly would be good to know).

Thanks,

Calvin Krusen

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Calvin Dekker" <calvin@...> wrote:
>
> Calvin -
>
>
>
> You can store the information in either field. They are both
available in
> future versions of Vantage.
>
>
>
> HTH,
>
> Calvin
>
>
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of
> Calvin Krusen
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:37 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] 8.03.403 Character01 vs UserChar1 user fields
>
>
>
> We want to add a text field to the PO Header to store the sales
order
> number the purchase is for. Is there any difference between
> POHeader.Character01 and POHeader UserChar1 fields?
>
> Does Epicor ever "steal" the user fields for future data?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Calvin
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Calvin K -



You already have the tools to migrate your data from one table to another
with your software installation. If you have Microsoft Office Access or
Excel you also have a GUI for migrating your data.



Note that any mass updates you do will be at your own risk. Migrating/Mass
updating data in user fields is pretty safe as far as not corrupting your
data structure. Since you are updating non-indexed data fields with your
specific example don't worry too much. Updates performed on indexed data I
would recommend you do not attempt without a DBA.



If you need assistance, please contact me off list at:
calvin@...



HTH,

Calvin D



From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Calvin Krusen
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 3:33 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: 8.03.403 Character01 vs UserChar1 user fields



Thanks Calvin D.

Now, is there any way to mass populate the UserChar1 field?

We just made the leap from Vista 4.41 to 8.03.403, and lost a lot of
the customizations. Most were poorly implemented, so no big deal on
the actual customizations, but we'd like to get the user defined
data into V8.03, just for historical purposes.

The data is in the user defined table UHPOHD of my old V4.4 system.
I'm just looking to copy the uhpohd.toord(a 20 character field) to
the POHeader.UserChar1 field of the appropriate record(when
uhpohd.topo = POHeader.PONum).

I only need to do this once, so I'm not looking to get too fancy
(although knowing how to do it on the fly would be good to know).

Thanks,

Calvin Krusen

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "Calvin
Dekker" <calvin@...> wrote:
>
> Calvin -
>
>
>
> You can store the information in either field. They are both
available in
> future versions of Vantage.
>
>
>
> HTH,
>
> Calvin
>
>
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf Of
> Calvin Krusen
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:37 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Vantage] 8.03.403 Character01 vs UserChar1 user fields
>
>
>
> We want to add a text field to the PO Header to store the sales
order
> number the purchase is for. Is there any difference between
> POHeader.Character01 and POHeader UserChar1 fields?
>
> Does Epicor ever "steal" the user fields for future data?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Calvin
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
What you are trying to do already exists natively in 403: Making the Parts Purchased Direct links them to the Sales Order (or a Job generating the requirement).

We aren't planning to use the capability (at least as of now) so I'm fuzzy on whether Purchased Direct Parts have any forced limits such as 1 PO Line per Requirement (versus 1 PO line linked to multiple requirements - as Parts ordered via a Job are capable of).

If it is a strict (interface forced - not db design limited) 1:1 relationship and that is impractical for you (as I suspect it might be for us), poke around in the data table definitions to see if you can (perhaps) still utilize the existing table fields displaying the linked demand order(s) and make them visible on whatever forms and reports are appropriate for your process.

As to the other question: Highly unlikely Epicor would ever 'hijack' a ud field for their own purposes when they can (and do) simply extend the db tables to add native fields as needed.

Calvin Krusen <ckrusen@...> wrote:
We want to add a text field to the PO Header to store the sales order
number the purchase is for. Is there any difference between
POHeader.Character01 and POHeader UserChar1 fields?

Does Epicor ever "steal" the user fields for future data?

Thanks,

Calvin






---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks Robert.



We are still in the process of "standardizing" our business practices (with
respect to the ERP system usage). So there is a lot of historical data that
wouldn't conform to the requirements of the Purchased Direct method.



The data in my V4.4 system was only ever meant as a reference, and might
contain values like "SO 2080123", "Order 2070321", "Orders 2071234 &
2071239", "SHOP SUPPLIES", etc. Going forward, we might look into the
Purchased Direct method, but we'd like to see the "Purchased For" notes from
the older system. Obviously the Purchased Direct field is going to require
an existing work order. That would prevent us from populating the purch.
dir. field with our "notes".



Thanks again,



Calvin K



From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Robert Brown
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:11 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] 8.03.403 Character01 vs UserChar1 user fields



What you are trying to do already exists natively in 403: Making the Parts
Purchased Direct links them to the Sales Order (or a Job generating the
requirement).

We aren't planning to use the capability (at least as of now) so I'm fuzzy
on whether Purchased Direct Parts have any forced limits such as 1 PO Line
per Requirement (versus 1 PO line linked to multiple requirements - as Parts
ordered via a Job are capable of).

If it is a strict (interface forced - not db design limited) 1:1
relationship and that is impractical for you (as I suspect it might be for
us), poke around in the data table definitions to see if you can (perhaps)
still utilize the existing table fields displaying the linked demand
order(s) and make them visible on whatever forms and reports are appropriate
for your process.

As to the other question: Highly unlikely Epicor would ever 'hijack' a ud
field for their own purposes when they can (and do) simply extend the db
tables to add native fields as needed.

Calvin Krusen <ckrusen@... <mailto:ckrusen%40comcast.net> > wrote:
We want to add a text field to the PO Header to store the sales order
number the purchase is for. Is there any difference between
POHeader.Character01 and POHeader UserChar1 fields?

Does Epicor ever "steal" the user fields for future data?

Thanks,

Calvin

---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]