Hi Nathan, This response from support seems to conflict with your expectations. What do you think?
Thanks for the update and I believe it’s the same issue. Let me explain.
In Epicor9, there was only 1 Table system and all tables began with Epicor. With Epicor10, Development split the systems into 2 sections - the Application (and those tables begin with Erp) and those related to the ICE Tools (and those tables begin with Ice).
For the Issue I submitted to Development, they created Investigational SCR 154134, which has the following Short Description:
Database Migration - E9 to E10 Company UD migration Erp.Company_UD table contains the E9.05.702a UD data while Ice.Company does not.
Development researched the issue and determined that having both Erp.Company and Ice.SysCompany Extended with the same fields will cause upgrade issues, so they decided that only Erp.Company should be Extended.
So the Conversion program was modified to migrate all E9 UD Data to the Erp.Company_UD table. The Conversion program was also modified to Drop the Ice.SysCompany_UD table, which would explain why you do not see that Table with the Data Dictionary Viewer.
Development also decided to Open Enhancement SCR 168118, which has the following Short Description:
EPIC - UD Table Entry - Create a standard pattern for the split tables that are common between ICE and ERP, eg. user, plant and company.
Since ENH SCR 168118 is still Open, I will link this Support Case to Development’s Enhancement Problem Case PRB0099904.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
It sounds similar, but if looking at the data dictionary is a proper diagnostic tool then our case is slightly different – We have a Company_UD table, but we don’t have a sysCompany_UD table at all.
I reported a similar issue some time ago. The CR is 21903ESC and has the following Description:
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: If the E9.05.702a Company table contains UD data (for example, in Character01, in Number01, in Date01, and in CheckBox01), the E9 to E10 Conversion program creates 2 sets of _UD tables for the Company table - one set for Erp.Company and another set for Ice.SysCompany. However, only the Erp.Company_UD table contains the E9.05.702a UD data. The Ice.SysCompany_UD table contains all zeroes (0).
PROGRAM ID: Customization/E9 to E10 Conversion Program.
EXPECTED BEHAVIOR: Development needs to decide what the correct Behavior should be. For example, should both E10 _UD tables be populated with E9.05.702a Company UD data? Or should only 1 set of E10 _UD table have been created?
I have reviewed the SCRs and there is much information to disgust, however, before I explain what I found, I would like to first know if the Problem described above is the same issue (or similar) that you are reporting.