Part Inspection Required

tmayfield · May 8, 2025, 6:11pm

I am trying to write a dashboard if inspection required is set on a part. seems easy enough, there is a drop-down to set the if inspection is required. Yay!

This field is bound to Part.RcvInspectionReqPart. I set that to part 1099-2-0 but when I look in the database this field is a 0.

How do I tell when inspection required is set?

jkane · May 8, 2025, 6:20pm

Are you using the partplant table?

bruce6s · May 8, 2025, 6:24pm

Try this field, PartPlant_RcvInspectionReqPart

tmayfield · May 8, 2025, 6:58pm

Yay, its set there. You would think that if it shows bound to a field it would update that field.

JasonMcD · May 9, 2025, 11:34am

Not exactly the same, but I know what you mean:

(Wow that is ugly as a preview. It’s a nice chart if you go to the post.)

Yevsey_Beylinson · September 1, 2026, 9:37pm

Anyone know the hierarchy for this?

Here is what I have so far:

Vendor->Local Overrides (PO, etc) → PartPlant.RcvInspectionReqPart(nvarchar(1))->Part.RcvInspectionReqPart(nvarchar(1))->PartClass.RcvInspectionReq(bit)

So basically the partPlant.RcvInspectionReq and Part.RcvInspectionReq are both dead fields now based on my understanding.

Below is what i’m thinking it is but not 100% sure without testing.

1. PO/Receipt Status	2. Vendor QA?	3. PartPlant.Rcv…Part	4. Part.Rcv…Part	5. PartClass.RcvInsp	Expected Outcome	System Rule Validated / Hierarchy Behavior
Force True	`False`	`N`	`N`	`False`	PUR-INS	Manual Escalation: User manually forced inspection on the line, overriding favorable master setup records.
Locked True	`True`	`Y`	`Y`	`True`	PUR-INS	Unified Agreement: Vendor and all underlying inventory tiers demand QA inspection.
Locked True	`True`	`N`	`N`	`False`	PUR-INS	Vendor Dominance: Top-tier vendor flag locks the transaction into inspection, completely ignoring part/site exceptions.
Locked True	`False`	`Y`	`Y`	`True`	PUR-INS	Site & Global Alignment: Local site and global master record rules perfectly match.
Locked True	`False`	`Y`	`N`	`False`	PUR-INS	Local Site Mandate: Local facility `Y` stops evaluation and overrides a global master part set to `N`.
Locked True	`False`	`Y`	`""`	`False`	PUR-INS	Local Site Mandate: Local facility `Y` forces inspection when the global master part is unconfigured (`""`).
Available (Blank)	`False`	`N`	`Y`	`True`	PUR-STK	Site Exemption: Local facility `N` terminates evaluation early, shielding this warehouse from global part and class constraints.
Available (Blank)	`False`	`N`	`""`	`True`	PUR-STK	Site Exemption: Local facility `N` actively intercepts and overrides baseline `PartClass` rules.
Available (Blank)	`False`	`N`	`N`	`False`	PUR-STK	Unified Exemption: Every single record explicitly dictates that inspection is not required.
Locked True	`False`	`""`	`Y`	`True`	PUR-INS	Global Part Mandate: Site is pass-through (`""`), so evaluation falls back to global Part `Y` which aligns with Class.
Locked True	`False`	`""`	`Y`	`False`	PUR-INS	Global Part Mandate: Site is pass-through (`""`), so evaluation falls back to global Part `Y` which overrides Class `False`.
Available (Blank)	`False`	`""`	`N`	`True`	PUR-STK	Global Exemption: Site is pass-through (`""`), so global Part `N` intercepts evaluation and breaks baseline Class rules.
Available (Blank)	`False`	`""`	`N`	`False`	PUR-STK	Global Exemption: Site is pass-through (`""`), so global Part `N` aligns with standard baseline Class behavior.
Locked True	`False`	`""`	`""`	`True`	PUR-INS	Class Mandate: Both site and part are pass-through rows; bottom-tier baseline `PartClass` configuration wins.
Available (Blank)	`False`	`""`	`""`	`False`	PUR-STK	Standard Flow: Total absence of routing overrides ensures parts flow smoothly straight onto the warehouse floor.

Yevsey_Beylinson · September 2, 2026, 8:34pm

Did anyone ever test any of this to verify/validate?