Part Class and GL account question

Part Class is not a required field. But we are using it and some of the classes have GL accounts entered and some don’t so I’m assuming that the GL is not required.
Is the GL required on the part class?
If not, can the GL be removed and what effect will it have for finance?

What I want to do is create new classes that make sense and need to know whether or not the GL has to be added before we start linking them to parts.

Hope this makes sense. Your questions, comments are more then welcome.

Thanks in advance,

G/L accounts are required at some point. If you don’t put them on the Part Class then it drops back to the Company default accounts, which are mandatory. In EpicWeb, check out the Hierarchical Guides to see how the G/L accounts are chosen for various transactions.


So… in my opinion, whenever I am setting up a new system, I typically make both the Part Class and Product group REQUIRED (via a BPM). Why? Not because anything is broken… but because I don’t like “accidental” defaults.
Further, I always make sure that all Part Classes & Product groups all point to proper GL accounts. Then in the “Default” inventory and sales accounts, I like to push those to an account that should never have any transactions. If I ever see anything go there, I know that there is something incorrectly defined.
My theme is that everything should be intentional in how it is setup.


One of the effects on finance will be what GL the part belongs to currently and what the new assigned class will be. Existing $$'s in the GL associated with that part will be stuck in the old GL while all new transactions after the change will transact out of the new GL. You can get around this by doing a qty adjustment on the part to 0 then updating the class and then adjusting the qty back in or you could do a journal entry to move the $$'s from the old GL to the new.

1 Like

I’m just curious on the benefits of using a BPM versus using Extended Properties maintenance and checking the field as required? No coding required with Extended Properties, but I’m wondering if there are any gotchas.