Adding an entity to a GL Control Type

Hey all, I’m back after a month of bringing another site onto Epicor with us. It is…working.

After mountains of research into transaction hierarchies, flexing and posting rule modifications, the accounting is where it needs to be.

And then I see this:


Question # 1: What in blazes does this GL control do?!

Either I have never seen it come up in the hierarchy manuals, or I have been confusing it with the Site Maintenance GL Control. This might explain why the PE Log Viewer sometimes says it’s unable to find “Seg2 value,” when I know I set up GL controls on the site and warehouse.

And then the really confusing thing to me, is that there is no GL Control Type associated with the Plant Configuration entity.

And I see that I could add the entity to an existing Type, or create a Type from scratch, but that’s like partial differential calculus to me.

Question # 2: are all the GL Control Types set up by hand in a new Epicor launch?! Or does everyone have “AR Account” and InventoryCOSandWIP" and “Plant Transfer,” like the pic below? If these are standard, why do I not have any Type tied to the Plant Config entity?

1 Like


But seriously… It is what controls which GL accounts are used by the various processes with specific Contexts.

Yous should have a minimum of the following Control Types (probably more)


Note that they all use a GL Control Code named “Default” . But those are actually 5 different GL Codes - which I created. They would have been better named “AP-Default”, “AR-Default”, etc…

So there are GL Control Types - like:

And each GLC Type can have one or more GLC Codes .

And each GLC Code has several contexts, based on it’s Type

The Code is where you assign the GL Acct to use for the specific Context.

For example, we created GLC Code with the following:

  • Type: Inventory COS Default
  • ID: Default
  • Set the GL Accts for the specific contexts

Then in Company Config, we added a new GLC

  • Selected Type Inventory COS and WIP
  • Selected Code: Default

Now any GL transaction related to COS Material (like when a shipment is invoiced) will use GL acct 6316-00-01.

Other GLControls can override that. But that is the last one in the heirarcy (like when no other GLC applies).

But since we want to break up COS Material by Product line, we do that by creating GLC’s of type Product Group. Here I was smart enough to prefix every GLC Code (for GLC Types Product Group), with “PG-”

For example, A GLC Code was created with:

  • Type: Product Group
  • Code: PG-CABL (I name them “PG-” + the ProdGrp Code)
  • Set the COS Material Context to use GL Acct 6372-00-01

Now if an Invoice line specifies a ProdGrp of CABL, the GL Acct 6372-00-01 will be used.
Any other Prd Grp (or an unspcified PrdGrp), will use 6316-00-01 (the one specified at the company config)

1 Like


That screen shot in Question 2 shows the Types. I think it is rare that you’s add any types.
What you need to do is create codes for those types (not necessarily all of them), and then assign those codes as needed.

As for you question about GLC’s for Plant, while there isn’t a GLC Type of Plant, You could create your own Type that is to be used with a Plant. But I’ve never created any Types, just Codes.

I’m answering the easy one first…

That’s basically what I was asking. I didn’t think you had to normally add types. I’ve added tons of GL codes. That, I have down.

That’s a pretty stellar overview of GL codes. Like, that needs to be pinned to some sort of “Top 20 explainer posts” list. No sarcasm–that’s awesome.

So I hate to burst your bubble, but… I know all that already.

I’m asking about the specific one in the first picture of my first post. What does that one do?

And I’ll spin part of question 2 into its own, since you answered the first part:

Question 3: If these Types are standard, why do I not have any Type tied to the Plant Config entity?

Yeah … Searching for Type, for an added GLC on Site Config Comes up blank.

But we do have ones on Site Maintenance:



And Type Division is the only built-in Type you can assign to a Plant Maintenance

Right. Same here.

Right but you can change that by adding entities to a GL Control Type. So I could add the Plant Configuration entity to an existing type and it’ll show up as an option in the Site Configuration GL Control search. Point is, that feels like playing with fire.

But as I said, why isn’t the Plant Configuration entity assigned to anything yet?

I know just enough to be dangerous in this section but I believe it is the hierarchy of the system. If there are no GL controls set at the site level it will move up to the company level. Assuming that you have multiple sites if you want to send items from one or more sites to different GL’s the you would create here. If not leave blank and they will just roll up to the company config.

Well I need to give support the benefit of the doubt sometimes. I put a ticket in (after everyone’s responses here), and they answered it quite well this morning.

There’s an article, KB0030729.

But short answer is, it’s not used and obsolete, but can be used in a customization if desired.

I’m lost as to how they mean a BAQ, but I’m not adventurous with finances anyway.

Text of KB article:

The General Ledger GL Control assigned through the Modules tab within the Site Configuration for Inventory Management is not used in out of the box rules and is not loaded as part of the VBD for COS and WIP Capture. Even if you have some GL Controls assigned there it is not used in the current rules and you will not be able to include it in the input document unless you were to use a BAQ. It is obsolete for our Standard Posting Rules, but technically you can create a customization that can use it (though not in really convenient way - BAQ).

1 Like

I was thinking about this, and believe that it’s not that it is missing from Site Configuration, but rather only belongs in one of Site Config or Site Maintenance.

Just like there is only the ability to add a GLC in Company Config, and not in Company Maintenance.

Thank you @JasonMcD the note is helpful.

Yet we get an error and are unable to run capture COS/WiP process.