I read what I could find about these tables on E10 topics. Could not find a definitive answer for this scenario.
I have a customization on Company Configuration and have added UD fields. I also have a customization on a UD form which pulls the data from the Company UD fields and allows the user to save changed values back to the Company table.
Twice in the last two weeks, the values reverted back to earlier values saved a long time ago.
I got to looking and the UD fields show up in the SysCompany table also but they are values from a long time ago. The same values we are reverting back to. Did some more digging and found they were reset the same day we did a resync of the data model.
I’m not sure if the UD fields were manually added to Company AND SysCompany using Extended User Defined Table Maintenance or if they were just added to Company.
If I go into Company Configuration, change the value of one of the UD fields and save. The new value shows up in the Company table but not the SysCompany table.
If I go into the customization on the UD form and save a new value using the ERP Company adapter, it saves in the Company table but not the Syscompany table.
I do not see an adapter for SysCompany.
I do not want to maintain both tables.
I am very confused at this behavior. What are we doing wrong here?
The problem you are suffering is that they are too similar today. Assume the ICE Sys Company areas will disappear from the Erp Company areas. They never should have been there and are not used for anything in ERP, only left for integration’s.
Those Ice duplicate fields in ERP forms are supposed to become lookups into ICE and not require that sync process. We just have not got around to making that happen yet.
I need the values to be updated from the Company Configuration and the Customization on the UD form. Some fields only get incremented but some fields can be valid if they are less than the original value. What criteria did you use on the BPM to stop them from ‘reverting back’ to the bad values?
Would removing the UD fields from the SysCompany table solve the problem?
Interesting Issue which I believe has been corrected in a newer version but i will check.
With ERP 10 and our move from Progress to pure MS, we also decided to fully split the technical functionality (ICE) from the application functionality (ERP). As part of that, we wanted to be able to deliver ICE as a completely independent package and mostly there was not a lot of crossover at the database level between ICE and ERP functionality. That said, ICE and ERP both had requirements and ownership of data in some tables - Company, Site (Plant), and User were the problem tables.
With Company and Site, we decided to create parallel tables for ICE - those are the “sys” versions of the tables and contain basic column. The ICE code will read/write to those tables while ERP code references the non-“sys” version of the tables.
When we did the split, we had several discussions (a few got heated) over how to manage the UD fields on those tables. The initial decisions was to move the UD fields to the ICE tables but after going live and having some users having difficulties with that choice, we decided to move them to the ERP version of the tables. That presented its own set of issues - one of which involved the Sync process that creates UD columns and then ensures we have a row in the UD table for every Row in the Base table.
3 Likes
aidacra
(Nathan your friendly neighborhood Support Engineer)
8
I think the approach we took in later releases is that we created the UD columns on both sides; any UD field added to either ERP/ICE, we added it automatically to the other. It’s been a while since I’ve attempted it. That is what we do with E905 to 10.x migrations with Company UD columns last I checked. I could be wrong
I’ve removed the extra UD fields in SysCompany as they were not being used. In about 45 minutes (lunch time) we are going to run a Data Sync to make Company and SysCompany match as far as UD fields go. Then I will make sure the values of the UD fields match and go from there.
Sounds like there still may be some ‘sync’ process in 10.1.400.18 from Company to SysCompany or vice versa. I wonder if this happens during Update Method or nightly, hourly…
