To be fair, this sounds like every major system I have ever installed. Perhaps it is something genetic that makes a salesperson a salesperson, and predisposes them to overpromise and underdeliver. In my experience, Epicor is far from unique in this regard.
Thom Rose
Controller
Electric Mirror, LLC
T 425 776-4946 ext. 1024
F 425 491-8200
A 11831 Beverly Park Road, Building D, Everett, WA 98204 USA
www.electricmirror.com<http://www.electricmirror.com/>
Note: The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachments, is legally privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any reading, use or dissemination of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 425-776-4946 and delete this message from your system. Even though this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free, and no responsibility is accepted by Electric Mirror LLC for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. www.electricmirror.com<http://www.electricmirror.com>
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dale R. Kalsow
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 7:49 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: {Disarmed} RE: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Customer Support
mmm- I have issues even getting my CAM to return my calls. We are
currently discussing how we fell their sales person over sold Epicor and
it does not do everything we expected it to do. Does any of this sound
familiar to anyone else?
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf
Of Stan Chmura
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 9:38 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Customer Support
Here's another:
Began in January, the question was "why does the automatic job close
function require a cost estimate on an operation that is marked as
QUANTITY
ONLY??"
The correspondence demonstrates that the support people could not even
determine what the question was, let alone answer it!
I've been on Vantage since 1999. In those days it was a quick pick up
the
phone, first name basis with the support techs, and an answer
immediately or
surely by the end of the day. Since the release of 8.0 that support
level
has dwindled to useless. And if the question starts with "How do I . . .
"
Oh my goodness, you need our consulting people and by the way that is
billable!
Module:
Job Management
Version:
8.03.403d
Bug Number:
Reference #:
Summary:
ENH JM auto job closing/complete process does not work if operation has
0
prod s
Details:
<javascript:var%20MyWindow=window.open('https://epicweb.epicor.com/eport
alne
t/AddEvent.aspx?CustomerView=yes&domainuserid=schmura&callid=6749B629939
847C
89ECDAD51213763EC','AddEvent','toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,l
ocat
ion=no,directories=no,status=yes,menubar=no,copyhistory=no,width=550,hei
ght=
300');MyWindow.focus();void%200;> Add New Event
Added:
4/17/2008 12:49:36 PM
By:
AZUSTIAK
Summary:
email string
Stan,
I received some more information on your questions.
The reason why the auto job close does not work when an operation has 0
estimated cost is because the calculation that is used in the auto job
close
function to determine if the job can be closed uses the estimated hours.
The
calculation ends up being a value divided by 0 (the estimate of 0).
I will put an enhancement in to change the way this works.
Thanks,
Amy
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Chmura [mailto:schmura@...<mailto:schmura%40fiberoptix.com>
<mailto:schmura%40fiberoptix.com> ]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 1:42 PM
To: Amy Zustiak
Subject: RE: Call 2911850MPS: JM Job estimates artificially inflating
labor
costs
Hi Amy:
I understand that. I knew that from testing the function and how it
works.
My questions remain:
A) If it is possible to have operations without cost estimates or
materials/subcontract without cost estimates, why are they required for
this
function to work?
And
B) Is it possible to revise the logic so that these estimates are not
required?
Thanks
Stan
Added:
4/7/2008 12:09:52 PM
By:
AZUSTIAK
Summary:
email to Stan
Stan,
I reviewed the design documentation for Auto Job Closing and it is
listed as
a limitation: "Jobs without estimated quantities and/or estimated cost
on
material, operation or subcontract levels are not automatically
completed or
closed"
Please let me know if this answers your question or if you have
additional
questions.
Thank you,
Amy Zustiak
MSG Application Support Team Lead
Added:
4/7/2008 9:31:00 AM
By:
JMEISNER
Summary:
Outgoing E-mail
From: James Meisner
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 9:31 AM
To: 'schmura@...<mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> <mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> '
Subject: Call 2911850MPS Support Reply: JM Job estimates artificially
inflating labor costs
Please reference call # 2911850MPS if you have any additional questions
on
this issue.
Sorry, I forgot to attach the screen shots.
Added:
4/7/2008 9:30:06 AM
By:
JMEISNER
Summary:
Outgoing E-mail
From: James Meisner
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 9:30 AM
To: 'schmura@...<mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> <mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> '
Subject: Call 2911850MPS Support Reply: JM Job estimates artificially
inflating labor costs
Please reference call # 2911850MPS if you have any additional questions
on
this issue.
Stan, I tested this in 6.10.543 and it worked the same in that version,
as
it did for me in 8.03.404a. I have attached some screen shots from my
test
in version 6. Operation 10 was marked as backflush with an estimate of 1
piece per hour. Operation 20 was quantity only with an estimate of 1
piece
per hour. When I did a rollup in cost set entry it brought in the labor
rate
from only the quantity only work center (op 20), and it took the labor
and
burden rate from both work centers. If you are seeing something
different in
version 6, please send me some screen shots showing this.
Added:
3/18/2008 9:10:07 AM
By:
JMEISNER
Summary:
Outgoing E-mail
From: James Meisner
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:10 AM
To: 'schmura@...<mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> <mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> '
Subject: Call 2911850MPS Support Reply: JM Job estimates artificially
inflating labor costs
Please reference call # 2911850MPS if you have any additional questions
on
this issue.
Stan I wanted to let you know I am still working on this. I have been
running this by a few different people to make sure I know what the
software
should be doing before I submit this to development. I will call you
when I
have an update.
Added:
2/12/2008 4:08:03 PM
By:
JMEISNER
Summary:
Outgoing E-mail
From: James Meisner
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 4:08 PM
To: 'schmura@...<mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> <mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> '
Subject: Call 2911850MPS Support Reply: JM Need help setting up auto job
completion
Please reference call # 2911850MPS if you have any additional questions
on
this issue.
Stan, I have tested this a few times, and when I had the standards setup
on
the final operation my standard costs were not artificially inflated. I
checked them after I did the auto complete, and again after it was auto
closed and the costs stayed the same. Test this on a backup system at
your
end and if you get something different can you sent me some screen shots
show the inflation of the standard costs from those estimates.
Added:
1/24/2008 10:22:30 AM
By:
WEB_USER
Summary:
Hierarchy
I understand the hierarchy for this process to be Final Operation
Complete;
Final operation labor/cost estimate; and lastly the parameters set in
the
Auto Job Complete/Close Code. Is that correct?
Also, I tested this with the final operation marked as Quantity Only as
opposed to Time/Quantity. The Job Complete Exception report shows that
the
process is still looking for a cost estimate for the final operation.
Since
the final op is for quantity only, no time (estimate or actual) is
applied
to that op; therefore no cost estimate. It seems the process is creating
an
exception preventing job completion or closing for a requirement that
does
not exist. Shouldn't the process ignore the need for cost estimate when
the
op is marked as quantity only?
Event added by: Stan Chmura(schmura@...<mailto:schmura%40fiberoptix.com>
<mailto:schmura%40fiberoptix.com> )
Added:
1/24/2008 8:35:23 AM
By:
JMEISNER
Summary:
*NEW JM Need help setting up auto job completion
Problem Description:
Stan is looking for some information on how to setup the auto job
completion
process. They are not live on 8.03 yet, they are live with 6.10.531
_____
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf Of
Michael McWilliams
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 10:26 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Customer Support
Here is a prime examle of a support request for a simple document.
It took almost 3 months to get it. When a user has an issue that I
cannot answer I let them know I will be putting a support call in.
A gods honest response Is them lauging at me saying maybe you can
get someone who you can understand this time. Then they come to a
realization that they will not get a good answer if one at all.
Epicor makes for the butt of alot of jokes around here. Maybe we
were just spoiled by our previous Vendor who would solve about
anything in a few minutes, including large issues in under 45
minutes.
Module:
Customization
Version:
8.03.403c
Bug Number:
Reference #:
Summary:
4/23- Looking for documentation concerning Customization for
Customer Connec
Details:
Re-open Call
Added:
4/10/2008 7:02:05 AM
By:
WEB_USER
Summary:
????????
Can someone call me to let me know why I cannot get this it has
been over 3 months.
Event added by: Mike McWilliams(mmcwilliams@
<mailto:mmcwilliams%40tbtube.com> tbtube.com)
Added:
3/25/2008 12:41:11 PM
By:
WEB_USER
Summary:
Hello anybody?
Still waiting on this one...
Event added by: Mike McWilliams(mmcwilliams@
<mailto:mmcwilliams%40tbtube.com> tbtube.com)
Added:
1/30/2008 2:28:58 PM
By:
DMURPHY
Summary:
Looking for documentation concerning Customization for Customer
Connect and Sale
Looking for documentation concerning Customization for Customer
Connect and Sales Connect.
--- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com,
"Dale R.
Kalsow" <dale.r.kalsow@...>
wrote:
Behalf
yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thom Rose
Controller
Electric Mirror, LLC
T 425 776-4946 ext. 1024
F 425 491-8200
A 11831 Beverly Park Road, Building D, Everett, WA 98204 USA
www.electricmirror.com<http://www.electricmirror.com/>
Note: The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachments, is legally privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any reading, use or dissemination of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 425-776-4946 and delete this message from your system. Even though this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free, and no responsibility is accepted by Electric Mirror LLC for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. www.electricmirror.com<http://www.electricmirror.com>
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dale R. Kalsow
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 7:49 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: {Disarmed} RE: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Customer Support
mmm- I have issues even getting my CAM to return my calls. We are
currently discussing how we fell their sales person over sold Epicor and
it does not do everything we expected it to do. Does any of this sound
familiar to anyone else?
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf
Of Stan Chmura
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 9:38 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Customer Support
Here's another:
Began in January, the question was "why does the automatic job close
function require a cost estimate on an operation that is marked as
QUANTITY
ONLY??"
The correspondence demonstrates that the support people could not even
determine what the question was, let alone answer it!
I've been on Vantage since 1999. In those days it was a quick pick up
the
phone, first name basis with the support techs, and an answer
immediately or
surely by the end of the day. Since the release of 8.0 that support
level
has dwindled to useless. And if the question starts with "How do I . . .
"
Oh my goodness, you need our consulting people and by the way that is
billable!
Module:
Job Management
Version:
8.03.403d
Bug Number:
Reference #:
Summary:
ENH JM auto job closing/complete process does not work if operation has
0
prod s
Details:
<javascript:var%20MyWindow=window.open('https://epicweb.epicor.com/eport
alne
t/AddEvent.aspx?CustomerView=yes&domainuserid=schmura&callid=6749B629939
847C
89ECDAD51213763EC','AddEvent','toolbar=no,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,l
ocat
ion=no,directories=no,status=yes,menubar=no,copyhistory=no,width=550,hei
ght=
300');MyWindow.focus();void%200;> Add New Event
Added:
4/17/2008 12:49:36 PM
By:
AZUSTIAK
Summary:
email string
Stan,
I received some more information on your questions.
The reason why the auto job close does not work when an operation has 0
estimated cost is because the calculation that is used in the auto job
close
function to determine if the job can be closed uses the estimated hours.
The
calculation ends up being a value divided by 0 (the estimate of 0).
I will put an enhancement in to change the way this works.
Thanks,
Amy
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Chmura [mailto:schmura@...<mailto:schmura%40fiberoptix.com>
<mailto:schmura%40fiberoptix.com> ]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 1:42 PM
To: Amy Zustiak
Subject: RE: Call 2911850MPS: JM Job estimates artificially inflating
labor
costs
Hi Amy:
I understand that. I knew that from testing the function and how it
works.
My questions remain:
A) If it is possible to have operations without cost estimates or
materials/subcontract without cost estimates, why are they required for
this
function to work?
And
B) Is it possible to revise the logic so that these estimates are not
required?
Thanks
Stan
Added:
4/7/2008 12:09:52 PM
By:
AZUSTIAK
Summary:
email to Stan
Stan,
I reviewed the design documentation for Auto Job Closing and it is
listed as
a limitation: "Jobs without estimated quantities and/or estimated cost
on
material, operation or subcontract levels are not automatically
completed or
closed"
Please let me know if this answers your question or if you have
additional
questions.
Thank you,
Amy Zustiak
MSG Application Support Team Lead
Added:
4/7/2008 9:31:00 AM
By:
JMEISNER
Summary:
Outgoing E-mail
From: James Meisner
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 9:31 AM
To: 'schmura@...<mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> <mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> '
Subject: Call 2911850MPS Support Reply: JM Job estimates artificially
inflating labor costs
Please reference call # 2911850MPS if you have any additional questions
on
this issue.
Sorry, I forgot to attach the screen shots.
Added:
4/7/2008 9:30:06 AM
By:
JMEISNER
Summary:
Outgoing E-mail
From: James Meisner
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 9:30 AM
To: 'schmura@...<mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> <mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> '
Subject: Call 2911850MPS Support Reply: JM Job estimates artificially
inflating labor costs
Please reference call # 2911850MPS if you have any additional questions
on
this issue.
Stan, I tested this in 6.10.543 and it worked the same in that version,
as
it did for me in 8.03.404a. I have attached some screen shots from my
test
in version 6. Operation 10 was marked as backflush with an estimate of 1
piece per hour. Operation 20 was quantity only with an estimate of 1
piece
per hour. When I did a rollup in cost set entry it brought in the labor
rate
from only the quantity only work center (op 20), and it took the labor
and
burden rate from both work centers. If you are seeing something
different in
version 6, please send me some screen shots showing this.
Added:
3/18/2008 9:10:07 AM
By:
JMEISNER
Summary:
Outgoing E-mail
From: James Meisner
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:10 AM
To: 'schmura@...<mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> <mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> '
Subject: Call 2911850MPS Support Reply: JM Job estimates artificially
inflating labor costs
Please reference call # 2911850MPS if you have any additional questions
on
this issue.
Stan I wanted to let you know I am still working on this. I have been
running this by a few different people to make sure I know what the
software
should be doing before I submit this to development. I will call you
when I
have an update.
Added:
2/12/2008 4:08:03 PM
By:
JMEISNER
Summary:
Outgoing E-mail
From: James Meisner
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 4:08 PM
To: 'schmura@...<mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> <mailto:%27schmura%40fiberoptix.com> '
Subject: Call 2911850MPS Support Reply: JM Need help setting up auto job
completion
Please reference call # 2911850MPS if you have any additional questions
on
this issue.
Stan, I have tested this a few times, and when I had the standards setup
on
the final operation my standard costs were not artificially inflated. I
checked them after I did the auto complete, and again after it was auto
closed and the costs stayed the same. Test this on a backup system at
your
end and if you get something different can you sent me some screen shots
show the inflation of the standard costs from those estimates.
Added:
1/24/2008 10:22:30 AM
By:
WEB_USER
Summary:
Hierarchy
I understand the hierarchy for this process to be Final Operation
Complete;
Final operation labor/cost estimate; and lastly the parameters set in
the
Auto Job Complete/Close Code. Is that correct?
Also, I tested this with the final operation marked as Quantity Only as
opposed to Time/Quantity. The Job Complete Exception report shows that
the
process is still looking for a cost estimate for the final operation.
Since
the final op is for quantity only, no time (estimate or actual) is
applied
to that op; therefore no cost estimate. It seems the process is creating
an
exception preventing job completion or closing for a requirement that
does
not exist. Shouldn't the process ignore the need for cost estimate when
the
op is marked as quantity only?
Event added by: Stan Chmura(schmura@...<mailto:schmura%40fiberoptix.com>
<mailto:schmura%40fiberoptix.com> )
Added:
1/24/2008 8:35:23 AM
By:
JMEISNER
Summary:
*NEW JM Need help setting up auto job completion
Problem Description:
Stan is looking for some information on how to setup the auto job
completion
process. They are not live on 8.03 yet, they are live with 6.10.531
_____
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf Of
Michael McWilliams
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 10:26 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Vantage] Re: Epicor Customer Support
Here is a prime examle of a support request for a simple document.
It took almost 3 months to get it. When a user has an issue that I
cannot answer I let them know I will be putting a support call in.
A gods honest response Is them lauging at me saying maybe you can
get someone who you can understand this time. Then they come to a
realization that they will not get a good answer if one at all.
Epicor makes for the butt of alot of jokes around here. Maybe we
were just spoiled by our previous Vendor who would solve about
anything in a few minutes, including large issues in under 45
minutes.
Module:
Customization
Version:
8.03.403c
Bug Number:
Reference #:
Summary:
4/23- Looking for documentation concerning Customization for
Customer Connec
Details:
Re-open Call
Added:
4/10/2008 7:02:05 AM
By:
WEB_USER
Summary:
????????
Can someone call me to let me know why I cannot get this it has
been over 3 months.
Event added by: Mike McWilliams(mmcwilliams@
<mailto:mmcwilliams%40tbtube.com> tbtube.com)
Added:
3/25/2008 12:41:11 PM
By:
WEB_USER
Summary:
Hello anybody?
Still waiting on this one...
Event added by: Mike McWilliams(mmcwilliams@
<mailto:mmcwilliams%40tbtube.com> tbtube.com)
Added:
1/30/2008 2:28:58 PM
By:
DMURPHY
Summary:
Looking for documentation concerning Customization for Customer
Connect and Sale
Looking for documentation concerning Customization for Customer
Connect and Sales Connect.
--- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com,
"Dale R.
Kalsow" <dale.r.kalsow@...>
wrote:
>bound
> Good Morning Everyone,
>
>
>
> I have a meeting with Epicor on Monday. One of the topics that is
> to come up is the level of support/response we receive when we callyou
> technical support and other people they have on staff.
>
>
>
> Does want to share their feels about Epicor? Do they respond when
> call? Are they helpful? If you call your CAM does he respondquickly?
>[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com] On
>
>
> Thanks !
>
>
>
> Dale
>
>
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
Behalf
> Of Kunal Gangulycustomization
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 9:14 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> Subject: Re: [Vantage] PO Entry form customizations
>
>
>
> I did not have such an option. Are you sure it was not a
> on your end?<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Thanks,
> Kunal
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: vantage <vantage@... <mailto:vantage%40rmgfelm.com> >
> To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
> Sent: Friday, May 9, 2008 9:05:10 AMthat I
> Subject: RE: [Vantage] PO Entry form customizations
>
> There is a check box in ver. 8.03 on the line to lock unit Price
> think does what you are doing in your custom code.is
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kunal Ganguly [mailto:kunal_vantage@ yahoo.com]
> Sent: May 09, 2008 8:52 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups .com
> Subject: Re: [Vantage] PO Entry form customizations
>
> Thanks a ton Rob! That did the trick as far as the values changing
> concerned. One issue down, 3 more to go :)com>
>
> Thanks,
> Kunal
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Robert Brown <robertb_versa@ <mailto:robertb_ versa%40yahoo.
> yahoo.com>editing as
> To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage% 40yahoogroups. com> .com
> Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2008 3:41:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vantage] PO Entry form customizations
>
> We experienced the (unacceptable) auto price change upon any
> well.tab w/
>
> I ended up adding a checkbox (PODetail.checkbox0 3) to the line
> thisByVal
> code to capture current line price and store as 'frozen' price (for
> restore
> after the app stupidly recalcs it) in PODetail.Number02:
>
> '//////
> Private Sub PODetail_AfterField Change(ByVal sender As object,
> args AsThen
> DataColumnChangeEve ntArgs) Handles PODetail_Column. ColumnChanged
> Event Handler Code
> '
> Select Case args.Column. ColumnName
>
> Case "CheckBox03"
> If edvPODetail. dataView( edvPODetail. Row)("CheckBox03 ") = True
> 'messagebox. show("freeze unit price value = unit cost on checkboxtrue
> select")edvPODetail.
> edvPODetail. dataView( edvPODetail. Row)("Number02" ) =
> dataView( edvPODetail. Row)("UnitCost" )PODetail.CalcTotalC
> End If
>
> Case Else
> End Select
> End Sub
> '/////
>
> I added a hidden textbox (txtEpiClcTtlCst) linked to
> ostByVal
> and then added this code to restore the price upon unwarranted app
> triggered
> changes:
>
> '////
> Private Sub txtEpiClcTtlCst_ ValueChanged( ByVal Sender As Object,
> Args As System.EventArgs) Handles txtEpiClcTtlCst. ValueChangedThen
> '// ** Place Event Handling Code Here **
> If len(txtEpiClcTtlCst .text) <> 0 then
> If edvPODetail. dataView( edvPODetail. Row)("CheckBox03 ") = True
> If edvPODetail. dataView( edvPODetail. Row)("UnitCost" ) <>edvPODetail.
> dataView( edvPODetail. Row)("Number02" ) ThenedvPODetail.
> 'messagebox. show("reset price to Freeze Unit Price value")
> edvPODetail. dataView( edvPODetail. Row)("UnitCost" ) =
> dataView( edvPODetail. Row)("Number02" )enable
> End If
> End If
> End If
> End Sub
> '////
>
> The darn shame of it is, the db looks like it was designed to
> rollback of cost as their are numerous pre-change qty, pre-changecost,
> etc., fields that look they were intended to store values prior tomess
> changes
> made. Unfortunately, most don't get updated so I had to write the
> above. Had they been working (404), it would have been muchcleaner.
>(instead of
> The ability of a buyer to set a checkbox to Lock a unit cost
> allowing a re-price based on the current price list - every time aqty
> orto the
> date changes) should be a standard option PO Entry option.
>
> Rob
> --- On Thu, 5/8/08, Kunal Ganguly <kunal_vantage@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: Kunal Ganguly <kunal_vantage@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Vantage] PO Entry form customizations
> To: "Vantage Yahoo Group" <vantage@yahoogroup s .com>
> Date: Thursday, May 8, 2008, 3:37 PM
>
> I have been running into a number of problems while customizing the
> Purchase
> Order Entry form.
>
> For starters, the unit price for any particular line items resets
> default value when ANY change is made to the form forcing the userto
> doubleafteradapter,
> check every time. I have been trying to use beforeadapter,
> afterfieldchange, and other variations/combinat ions to littlesuccess.
> Essentially, we would like the unit price to not changeautomatically,
> itmade
> should remain the same value throughout no matter what change is
> anywhere else. (BPMs failed to do anything useful to help withthis)
>quantity.
> We would like releases for any new line item to have a locked
> While this is relatively simple to do with a afterfieldchangemethod,
> buttwo do
> this tends to interfere with the above problem or vice-versa. The
> notto
> seem to co-exist very well.
>
> For line items that fall into the "other" category, we would like
> pick aadded
> single GL account on the release form for all future line items. I
> abut I
> new search button and textboxes for the user to pick a GL account,
> cannot seem to find an easy way to (a) make all "other" line itemsuse
> thatAlso,
> GL account and/or (b) have all new line items use that GL account.
> asline
> with the unit cost problem above, when ANY change is made to the
> item,value.
> the GL on the release form tends to reset to the same "misc"
>yahoo.com/
> Any suggestions and comments would be highly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Kunal
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.
> ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJyahoo.com/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.
> ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ<http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.
> <http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ>
> yahoo.com/;_ ylt=Ahu06i62sR8H DtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.
yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]